FAQ - Stopping Women Who Rape
Laurie S.
Talk.rape added.
Good fucking _grief_.
People rape for a myriad of reasons, and guess what, Lenny? They make
that decision ... not their victims, not their mothers, not their
fathers, not pornography, not the unfair world, not people who treat
them shabbily.
It's ludicrous to attribute a rapist mentality to simply being raised
in a single-parent household without a "family man" present.
I'm not going to waste any more time over this rapist-excusing drivel.
Laurie
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Stopping Women Who Rape
>(The Rest of the Story)
>
>Why do so many women raise their babies to be
>rapists? How do we help these women who perpetuate violence to other
>women through their sons? Aren't the vast majority of these boys raised
>in fatherless homes? These boys suffer from a learned helplessness from
>their mothers who abuse them in part by not making sure they had a man's
>commitment to fatherhood before bringing children into the world. A man
>who would normally be there to provide a model of the committed family
>man he could learn to follow. This is nothing short of child abuse
>which breeds the anger, and provides wounds that create future rapists.
>These boys are already trained sociopaths by the time they're men. Yet
>we blame them! We try to blame the victim! We need to strengthen laws
>against the morally deadbeat moms who whould do such a terrible thing to
>their sons. There is some 30 Billion dollars in unpaid child support
>mostly because these women couldn't care less who they jumped into bed
>with. Time to crack down on these immature women who would seduce young
>men with cheap sex and then dump them for the next boyfriend, not caring
>in the least about how her children suffers from her behaviors.
>
>Meanwhile other children suffer because the County Prosecutors are too
>overworked or don't care to provide the proper pandering collection services
>these abusive women consume by their appetites for cheap sex and drugs.
>
>We also need more and more large Federal grants to set up Counseling
>Centers accross the country to service the young men in crises from the
>effects of their rapist upbringing. Proper behavioral training along
>with stopping our society's obsession for blaming the victims, can help
>put a stop to the violent cycle of women raising people to become rapists,
>and all their other forms of domestic violence.
>
>Stop the Culture of Rape!
>Tell These Women We Mean Business!
>
>Love, lenny
>--
>using spamgard(tm). To send me email, include the password Lenny in the
>Subject: line. "Et Hoc Tuie"
J.D.
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless
homes. (Source: Criminal Justic & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
http://www.fathermag.com/news/zindex.html
Sincerely,
J.D.
Kerry Keane
J.D. (roc...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
: 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless
: homes. (Source: Criminal Justic & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
: http://www.fathermag.com/news/zindex.html
My, is this the new tack being taken? Why all of
this sudden concern about stopping rape?
Okay, but let's see all of you put your heads together
and prove that one is the direct cause of the other.
I'm sure that with your staggering collective
intellectual capacity you can do this.
Chris Palazini
On 9 Jan 1998 17:36:56 GMT, lud...@ripco.com (Kerry Keane) wrote:
> J.D. (roc...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
> : 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless
> : homes. (Source: Criminal Justic & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
>
> : http://www.fathermag.com/news/zindex.html
>
> My, is this the new tack being taken? Why all of
> this sudden concern about stopping rape?
Why do you feel that stopping rape shouldn't be a concern?
:: Chris ::
Kerry Keane
Chris Palazini (cp...@earthling.net) wrote:
: On 9 Jan 1998 17:36:56 GMT, lud...@ripco.com (Kerry Keane) wrote:
: > : http://www.fathermag.com/news/zindex.html
: >
: > My, is this the new tack being taken? Why all of
: > this sudden concern about stopping rape?
: Why do you feel that stopping rape shouldn't be a concern?
Why do you take posts completely out of context and
draw offensive conclusions from them?
Chris Palazini
The question was clear enough. You had sounded incredulous
that there should be a "sudden concern about stopping rape."
So I ask you, why shouldn't rape be a concern worth stopping?
But please, do explain what in what "context" I should have
understood your original question.
:: Chris ::
Laurie S.
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Laurie S. <lea...@northernnet.com> wrote:
>: Talk.rape added.
>
>
>: Good fucking _grief_.
>
>An attribute of rape, yes.
>
>: People rape for a myriad of reasons, and guess what, Lenny? They make
>: that decision ... not their victims, not their mothers, not their
>: fathers, not pornography, not the unfair world, not people who treat
>: them shabbily.
>
>...and not just men are responsible for rape.
>
People who rape are responsible for rape. One doesn't "create" a
rapist.
>: It's ludicrous to attribute a rapist mentality to simply being raised
>: in a single-parent household without a "family man" present.
>
>Ludicrous for you, perhaps. Most normal people require good men in their
>lives as children, especially fathers.
>
No. No one "requires" good men in their lives, anymore than they
"require" good women. It's best if children have a matched set of
loving parents, but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way.
There are plenty of single-parent homes in which the environment is
very loving and positive, just as there are plenty of two-parent homes
in which the environment is horrible.
The simple presence or absence of one parent is NOT in itself enough
to make a difference between someone becoming a rapist or not.
>: I'm not going to waste any more time over this rapist-excusing drivel.
>
>There is no excuse for rape, period. There is also no excuse for feminist
>propaganda which blames only men for this phenomenon. The second step in
>stopping rape is to expose feminist pandering of rape and victims as fodder
>for their gender wars. (The first step is to lock up rapists for very
>long stretches.).
>
>Why are you glossing over women's contributions to rape?
Because the simple act of being a mother without a father present is
not in any way a contribution to rape. Would you say that about a
young widow? About a woman whose husband had left her? About a woman
who had to leave an an abusive man for her own safety and/or that of
her children?
All single moms aren't just women who have ditched their husbands.
There are all sorts of reasons why there may be only one parent in the
home.
I don't consider men less valuable to their children than women are to
their children. But I consider NEITHER sex to be so valuable that
without their presence, a child is in danger of becoming a rapist in
adulthood.
Where is your
>indignant posts when feminist hate mongers post anti-male "drivel" here?
>
I've posted many responses to women who have said stupid things about
men. Although I usually ignore the trollish ones.
Laurie
Kerry Keane
Lenny Schafer (sch...@netcom.com) wrote:
: The importance of fathers in the lives of children is well established.
: Why are you trying to gloss over women's contributions to rape?
That's not a very conservative argument, Lenny, now is it?
It's another version of the "abuse excuse".
Conservatives like to argue that individuals, not society,
are responsible for their actions.
Or are you just being cheeky again?
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>,
Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>: People rape for a myriad of reasons, and guess what, Lenny? They make
>: that decision ... not their victims, not their mothers, not their
>: fathers, not pornography, not the unfair world, not people who treat
>: them shabbily.
>
>...and not just men are responsible for rape.
She said that. It's right there in the word "people," which means "men
and women. If she'd meant "men," she'd have said "men."
However, the only women responsible for rape are the individual women who
make the choice to rape, just as the only men responsible for rape are
the individual men who make the choice to rape.
Emma
Lenny Schafer wrote:
> Kerry Keane <lud...@ripco.com> wrote:
> : J.D. (roc...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
> : : 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless
> : : homes. (Source: Criminal Justic & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
>
> : : http://www.fathermag.com/news/zindex.html
>
> : My, is this the new tack being taken? Why all of
> : this sudden concern about stopping rape?
>
> : Okay, but let's see all of you put your heads together
> : and prove that one is the direct cause of the other.
> : I'm sure that with your staggering collective
> : intellectual capacity you can do this.
>
> The importance of fathers in the lives of children is well established.
Not so...the importance of parent figures who love the children and can meet
their needs, is well established. Whether that be male or famale...natural or
adoptive, is a different matter.
> Why are you trying to gloss over women's contributions to rape?
>
Steven Grzesik
In article <6970bq$b...@xochi.tezcat.com>,
Oh my God! Danny (Shouldabeenafaggot) Holtzman strikes again. Guess what Danny. Women can't
rape.
If you ever had a non Femassworship hardon in your pitiful life you'd understand.
But you're just a little femboy puke.
Carry on, suckass.
Life is good.
Steve
Laurie S.
Steven Grzesik <Ran...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <6970bq$b...@xochi.tezcat.com>,
> hol...@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel B. Holzman) wrote:
>
>>In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>,
>>Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>: People rape for a myriad of reasons, and guess what, Lenny? They make
>>>: that decision ... not their victims, not their mothers, not their
>>>: fathers, not pornography, not the unfair world, not people who treat
>>>: them shabbily.
>>>
>>>...and not just men are responsible for rape.
>>
>>She said that. It's right there in the word "people," which means "men
>>and women. If she'd meant "men," she'd have said "men."
>>
>>However, the only women responsible for rape are the individual women who
>>make the choice to rape, just as the only men responsible for rape are
>>the individual men who make the choice to rape.
>>
>
> Oh my God! Danny (Shouldabeenafaggot) Holtzman strikes again. Guess what Danny. Women can't
>rape.
Who says? I'm a woman and I am physically capable of raping someone in
a number of different ways. I wouldn't do it, but there are certainly
ways that I could if I so chose.
>If you ever had a non Femassworship hardon in your pitiful life you'd understand.
>But you're just a little femboy puke.
>Carry on, suckass.
>Life is good.
>Steve
I'd say something that would make you look really ridiculous, but I
dunno, I don't think I could top your own lunatic words here.
Laurie
Rich
Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
>
> In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>,
> Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >: People rape for a myriad of reasons, and guess what, Lenny? They make
> >: that decision ... not their victims, not their mothers, not their
> >: fathers, not pornography, not the unfair world, not people who treat
> >: them shabbily.
> >
> >...and not just men are responsible for rape.
>
> She said that. It's right there in the word "people," which means "men
> and women. If she'd meant "men," she'd have said "men."
Unless she made a typo. :^}
> However, the only women responsible for rape are the individual women who
> make the choice to rape, just as the only men responsible for rape are
> the individual men who make the choice to rape.
Really? Feminism holds *all* men responsible for rape.
Rich
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <34b74994....@news.northernnet.com>,
Laurie S. <lea...@northernnet.com> quoted Stevey Greese-sick:
>>
>> Oh my God! Danny (Shouldabeenafaggot) Holtzman strikes again. Guess what
The funny thing is, Stevey thingks "shouldabeenafaggot" is an insult to
me.
>>If you ever had a non Femassworship hardon in your pitiful life you'd
>>understand.
>>But you're just a little femboy puke.
>>Carry on, suckass.
>>Life is good.
>>Steve
I'm always amused that the only people who speak to me like this are
lame-assed patri-wannas sitting safe behind a computer screen, inbetween
wondering why they can't get laid.
Gerard S. Harbison
Kerry Keane wrote:
> Why do you take posts completely out of context and
> draw offensive conclusions from them?
I dunno. Why do you take a post that's obviously a parody and do the
same?
Steven Grzesik
In article <698f6o$2...@xochi.tezcat.com>,
hol...@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel B. Holzman) wrote:
Sure, Danny. I posted my picture. Why don't you post yours? Let's see who's more apt to be safe
or laid. Nevermind...you'll just dig up a pic of a real man somewhere. You see, puffball, I've
seen too many of your ilk to believe you'd be any diffrent. Always the same shapeless little man
with lofty ideals rooted in imaginary la la land crap learned in some environment totally
removed from real life. I'll bet you're a big city boy with liberal ideals.
Ever build a campfire, Danny? I'll bet you have hugged trees and done aromatherapy.
Life is good.
Steve
Count Chockula
Lenny you have made an argument that I totally agree with! It's unfortunate
that your humorous style will get this intelligent educational piece
overlooked by male-bashing, self-loathing feminist.
If you check back in the fifties the people most responsible for rape were
the men whose father's had died during W.W.II where the mothers didn't get
remarried. Remember the Wild Bunch they were all products of broken homes.
Because there are so many broken homes now days you don't even see the term
used.
Promise Keepers believes that women physically can't control men and that
for change to occur men must call other men to wholeness. As Hillary
Clinton says it take a village to raise a child.
The community of men needs to be controlled by men to protect women. If you
think you can raise a man like a women and expect him to be attuned to your
feminine ways you are totally ignorant of human nature. Most men need to be
disciplined to accept there place and to see there place as revenant to the
protection of the whole. If not then anarchy ensues. Women coddle their
son's and treat them with feminine love and expect that's what they need to
grow up strong and health and loving, some will, some will eat your liver
with farmer beans.
Your the woman, it your choice, choose wisely, not all of us will always be
here to cover your ass. Thanks Lenny.
Count Chockula
Lenny Schafer wrote in message ...
>Laurie S. <lea...@northernnet.com> wrote:
>: Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>: >Laurie S. <lea...@northernnet.com> wrote:
>: >
>: People who rape are responsible for rape. One doesn't "create" a
>: rapist.
>
>Gotta love it. Feminists can morph themselves into taking traditional
>conservative positions, like taking full responsibility for your actions,
when it
>suits them in an argument. Hey, Laurie, Daniel, kids...what happened to
the
>evil partriacrchy that makes women do the nasty things they do? What
>happened to "learned helplessness"? And that big feminists bug-a-boo
SOCIAL
>CONDITIONING that's at the root cause of all things bad? Feminists put
away
>the victimhood pity-potty when it's time to bash men.
>
>My intent, Emma, was indeed to create a "cheeky" devil's advocate (liberal)
>parody of typical feminist anti-male rape propaganda, but instead bashing
>women -- and totally leaving men out of the picture. Sauce for the goose,
>and all that...
>
>: >: It's ludicrous to attribute a rapist mentality to simply being raised
>: >: in a single-parent household without a "family man" present.
>: >
>: >Ludicrous for you, perhaps. Most normal people require good men in
their
>: >lives as children, especially fathers.
>: >
>
>: No. No one "requires" good men in their lives, anymore than they
>: "require" good women. It's best if children have a matched set of
>: loving parents, but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way.
>
>: There are plenty of single-parent homes in which the environment is
>: very loving and positive, just as there are plenty of two-parent homes
>: in which the environment is horrible.
>
>However, there is not an equanimity in these situations. Over all, it is
>two-parent household that is the better family model. The importance of
>men in the lives of children has for too long been dismissed and discounted
>by anti-male bigots like yourself. And all too successfully,
unfortunately.
>
>
>: The simple presence or absence of one parent is NOT in itself enough
>: to make a difference between someone becoming a rapist or not.
>
>Still you gloss over the contributions women make to the culture of rape.
>
>: >: I'm not going to waste any more time over this rapist-excusing drivel.
>: >
>: >There is no excuse for rape, period. There is also no excuse for
feminist
>: >propaganda which blames only men for this phenomenon. The second step
in
>: >stopping rape is to expose feminist pandering of rape and victims as
fodder
>: >for their gender wars. (The first step is to lock up rapists for very
>: >long stretches.).
>: >
>: >Why are you glossing over women's contributions to rape?
>
>: Because the simple act of being a mother without a father present is
>: not in any way a contribution to rape.
>
>Feminist lies. Male-hating women raise their sons to be rapists, but
>probably not intentionally. You don't need to be an Einstein to figure
>this out; but it helps not to be a feminist.
>
>Rape, like domestic violence, will not go away until women start
>acknowledging their roles in fostering it. So far, all I see here are
>feminists doing just the opposite.
>
>Would you say that about a
>: young widow? About a woman whose husband had left her? About a woman
>: who had to leave an an abusive man for her own safety and/or that of
>: her children?
>
>I say all the fashionable male-bashing makes it real easy for women to
>find excuses to bail out of their family and marriage commitments.
>If you can abort your own fetus, you can abort almost anything. Callous
>pie, anyone?
>
>
>: All single moms aren't just women who have ditched their husbands.
>: There are all sorts of reasons why there may be only one parent in the
>: home.
>
>Yes, we are all well aware of all the men who are creeps out there. I am
>attempting to tell the other half of the story.
>
>: I don't consider men less valuable to their children than women are to
>: their children.
>
>I don't believe you.
>
>: But I consider NEITHER sex to be so valuable that
>: without their presence, a child is in danger of becoming a rapist in
>: adulthood.
>
>I don't agree with you, either.
Steen Goddik
On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Steven Grzesik wrote:
[insults snipped]
Guess what Danny. Women can't > rape.
> If you ever had a non Femassworship hardon in your pitiful life you'd
understand.
[more insults snipped]
Steve, you need to redo your biology classes, or maybe take some more.
Women can INDEED rape, and some do indeed do just that, just as some men
rape. Your knowledge of biology is right up there with the idiotic
senator 3 years back, who claimed that raped women couldn't get pregnant,
because the *juices weren't flowing.
It is always painful to read biology-challenged people making
nicely simplified and absolutist utterances about biology
Steen Goddik sgo...@sunflowr.edu.com
"Naar moderen fryser, faar barnet en ekstra sweater paa"
"When the parent is freezing, the child gets an extra sweater on"
Emma
Lenny Schafer wrote:
> Laurie S. <lea...@northernnet.com> wrote:
> : Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> : >Laurie S. <lea...@northernnet.com> wrote:
> : >
<snip>
> My intent, Emma, was indeed to create a "cheeky" devil's advocate (liberal)
> parody of typical feminist anti-male rape propaganda, but instead bashing
> women -- and totally leaving men out of the picture. Sauce for the goose,
> and all that...
OK...but why are you dragging me into this?
<snip>
Christine A. Owens
Rich wrote:
>
> Really? Feminism holds *all* men responsible for rape.
Which 'official feminist doctrine', demonstrably accepted by all
feminists says this, Rich?
BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
responsible for rape. I further hold social institutions, created by
male and female consensus, which facilitate rape, and prevent its
reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
Chris Owens
Rich
Christine A. Owens wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
> >
> > Really? Feminism holds *all* men responsible for rape.
>
> Which 'official feminist doctrine', demonstrably accepted by all
> feminists says this, Rich?
It's written in the same book by which they deny any responsibility
for the doings of the movement they self identify with and where
they it states that the feminist was on equality (ex, the feminist
fight against CA Prop 209 <the state shall not discriminate>) is
not to be discussed and where it states that bad things men do are
to be discusses and it is to be denied that feminism can do bad
things, has ever done bad things, and that one should attack anyone
suggesting suck. There are a lot of near-universal feminist behaviors
Christine.
> BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
> responsible for rape.
Yeah, I've heard that very same thing said by women WRT DV. Funny thing
was, when I tested it, it turned out to be a lie. Somewhat like Steen
Goddik's postings, feminist lies.
> I further hold social institutions, created by
> male and female consensus, which facilitate rape, and prevent its
> reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
And what of feminist institutions that create and support discrimination?
Notably *every* feminist organization that can be found, all of which
support institutionalized anti-male discrimination and all of which were
against CA Prop 209. BTW, they successfully lobbied against a similar
bill in congress, feminism is 100% against non-discrimination in the
workplace. What say you about these?
> Chris Owens
Rich
Daniel B. Holzman
>evil partriacrchy that makes women do the nasty things they do? What
You'll have to ask someone who subscribes to such a notion. Try as you
might, you will not find me holding anyone but the women who do nasty
things responsible for doing the nasty things that they individually do.
>However, there is not an equanimity in these situations. Over all, it is
>two-parent household that is the better family model. The importance of
>men in the lives of children has for too long been dismissed and discounted
>by anti-male bigots like yourself. And all too successfully, unfortunately.
Careful, there, Lenny. A two-parent household is not the same thing as
men in the lives of children. There's a number of two-parent households
out there with two women there, and a number of two-parent households
where the father and child are all but strangers to one another.
>: >Why are you glossing over women's contributions to rape?
>
>: Because the simple act of being a mother without a father present is
>: not in any way a contribution to rape.
>
>Feminist lies. Male-hating women raise their sons to be rapists, but
>probably not intentionally. You don't need to be an Einstein to figure
>this out; but it helps not to be a feminist.
You get a 7.8 from this judge for your logical acrobatics. How do you
get from "single mother" to "male-hating women"? Just how many single
mothers do you know, anyway?
>Would you say that about a
>: young widow? About a woman whose husband had left her? About a woman
>: who had to leave an an abusive man for her own safety and/or that of
>: her children?
>
>I say all the fashionable male-bashing makes it real easy for women to
>find excuses to bail out of their family and marriage commitments.
>If you can abort your own fetus, you can abort almost anything. Callous
>pie, anyone?
Interesting thing to say about a widow, or a woman who's husband left
her. Non-sequitor, but interesting all the same.
>: All single moms aren't just women who have ditched their husbands.
>: There are all sorts of reasons why there may be only one parent in the
>: home.
>
>Yes, we are all well aware of all the men who are creeps out there. I am
>attempting to tell the other half of the story.
Less than a half. There's even the situation where the fact of a single
parent household doesn't involve the creepdom of anyone. Laurie even
gave an example of such -- where the husband dies. Here, I'll give you
another: Where the man's work requires him to be on the road, or moving
from city to city every few months, and he's unable to be home being a
"man in the house" because doing what he has to do to put food on the
table precludes it.
>: I don't consider men less valuable to their children than women are to
>: their children.
>
>I don't believe you.
Then there's not much point to a dialogue between the two of you, is
there?
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <34B8F06C...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
>
>> BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
>> responsible for rape.
>
>Yeah, I've heard that very same thing said by women WRT DV. Funny thing
>was, when I tested it, it turned out to be a lie. Somewhat like Steen
>Goddik's postings, feminist lies.
Chris, It's worth noting here that Rich only counts the negative responses,
and ignores the positives. I.E., that Avedon, Laurie, myself, and several
other feminists have unconditionally condemned the DV that Rich suffered
and hold the woman who perpetrated it solely and wholly responsible for
it doesn't register on his "test."
That does tend to skew the results.
Rich
Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
>
> In article <34B8F06C...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
> >> responsible for rape.
> >
> >Yeah, I've heard that very same thing said by women WRT DV. Funny thing
> >was, when I tested it, it turned out to be a lie. Somewhat like Steen
> >Goddik's postings, feminist lies.
>
> Chris,
Chris?
> It's worth noting here that Rich only counts the negative responses,
> and ignores the positives. I.E., that Avedon, Laurie, myself, and several
> other feminists
Laurie is not a feminist.
> have unconditionally condemned the DV that Rich suffered
> and hold the woman who perpetrated it solely and wholly responsible for
> it doesn't register on his "test."
And this is irrelevant to my text above.
BTW, when feminists hold women responsible for false rape accusations, this
amounts to a pat on the back. Avedon would not penalize women who make false
rape accusations in any way. When you say that feminists hold women "responsible"
this does not in any way correspond to the way feminists hold men responsible.
One involves penalties, the other feminists reward and support. Use your
Captain Comet decoder ring to figure out which they reward and which they
punish.
> That does tend to skew the results.
Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
believe a word of it skew the results?
Rich
Eric Conrad
>: The simple presence or absence of one parent is NOT in itself enough
>: to make a difference between someone becoming a rapist or not.
>
>Still you gloss over the contributions women make to the culture of rape.
Lenny, you sound just like a feminist. ;-)
What's even funnier is that most feminists will be unable
to see the resemblance. This especially includes the troll
VIS...@javanet.com who recently suggested that only men can
stop rape, which is nonsense as more than 99% of men are not
and never will be rapists.
Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University
Eric Conrad
In article <34B8DB...@redsuspenders.com>,
Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
>Rich wrote:
>>
>> Really? Feminism holds *all* men responsible for rape.
>
>Which 'official feminist doctrine', demonstrably accepted by all
>feminists says this, Rich?
>
>reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
Can I assume that you also find that social institutions (like Rape
Crisis Centers) which facilitate false reporting of rape are
responsible for false rape allegations, as are those who make them.
Kerry Keane
Organization: Ripco Internet Services- Chicago
Distribution:
Gerard S. Harbison (ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu) wrote:
: Kerry Keane wrote:
You snipped the part where I asked him if he was being cheeky.
However, he continues to blame "man-hating" mothers for
producing rapists.
r.so...@worldnet.att.net
Is this in some alternate universe or have I not been paying attention?
I haven't seen him make the above claim.
Rich Soyack
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <34B936A1...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
>Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
>>
>> In article <34B8F06C...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
>> >
>> >> responsible for rape.
>> >
>> >was, when I tested it, it turned out to be a lie. Somewhat like Steen
>> >Goddik's postings, feminist lies.
>>
>> Chris,
>
>Chris?
Chris. The person to whom you were following up, who has not yet gone
through this with you.
>> It's worth noting here that Rich only counts the negative responses,
>> and ignores the positives. I.E., that Avedon, Laurie, myself, and several
>> other feminists
>
>Laurie is not a feminist.
>
>> have unconditionally condemned the DV that Rich suffered
>> and hold the woman who perpetrated it solely and wholly responsible for
>> it doesn't register on his "test."
>
>And this is irrelevant to my text above.
It's entirely relevant, Rich. You keep talking about the response you
got a year and a half ago, pretenting that it is the nigh-universal
feminist response, and have never once modified that view no matter how
many feminists in the intervening year and a half have come forward with
the direct opposite of your claim. You've had the direct data, and at
this late date the only reason that it is not taken into account in your
reasoning is that you decide not to take it into account.
>BTW, when feminists hold women responsible for false rape accusations, this
>amounts to a pat on the back. Avedon would not penalize women who make false
>rape accusations in any way.
This is a mischaracterization of Avedon's position that she has gone over
with you time and again. At this late date, the only reason you
misinterpret her in this way is that you choose to.
>When you say that feminists hold women "responsible"
>this does not in any way correspond to the way feminists hold men responsible.
>One involves penalties, the other feminists reward and support. Use your
>Captain Comet decoder ring to figure out which they reward and which they
>punish.
Not that I expect this to get taken into account in your polling, but I
think J should have been prosecuted, convicted, and gotten to go through
all the wonderful things that some of the men who pull the same shit that
she did get to go through.
>> That does tend to skew the results.
>
>Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
>believe a word of it skew the results?
Since you count Dorothy's response but discount all the responses
believing you, yes it does.
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <34B936A1...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
>
>Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
>believe a word of it skew the results?
>
Hm. I'm having trouble finding this in dejanews and I'd like to respond
to Dorothy on it. Do you happen to have a thread title or message ID I
could use to narrow my search?
Eric Conrad
In article <69db4e$1lj$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
Kerry Keane <lud...@ripco.com> wrote:
>Organization: Ripco Internet Services- Chicago
>Distribution:
>
>Gerard S. Harbison (ge...@chem-gharbison.unl.edu) wrote:
>: Kerry Keane wrote:
>
>: > Why do you take posts completely out of context and
>: > draw offensive conclusions from them?
>
>: I dunno. Why do you take a post that's obviously a parody and do the
>: same?
>
>You snipped the part where I asked him if he was being cheeky.
>However, he continues to blame "man-hating" mothers for
>producing rapists.
I think Lenny is going through a Yin-Yang phase.
Some women occasionally like to express their masculine side.
Some men occasionally like to express their feminine side.
Lenny is just expressing his feminist side. Just as real feminists regularly
blame an institution (patriarchy) for bad things that just a handful of
people do, Lenny is blaming an institution (unmarried motherhood) for
bad things that a handful of people do.
Funny thing. When feminists blame "patriarchy" for things that just a few
individuals do, some men get mad. When Lenny blames "unmarried motherhood"
for the same things, Kerry Keane gets mad. Do you see any resemblance.
Curiously, Lenny gives far more justification for blaming "unmarried
motherhood" than feminists give for blaming "patriarchy", but Kerry
Keane doesn't get mad at feminists.
I find myself at a loss to explain this inconsistency in Kerry Keane's
behavior.
And BTW, this was an obvious Lenny parody, apparently inspired by one of
VIS...@javanet.com's bigoted posts. To the best of my knowledge, Ms.
Keane has not yet responded to that post.
Regards,
Kerry Keane
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: In article <69db4e$1lj$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
: Kerry Keane <lud...@ripco.com> wrote:
: Funny thing. When feminists blame "patriarchy" for things that just a few
: individuals do, some men get mad. When Lenny blames "unmarried motherhood"
: for the same things, Kerry Keane gets mad. Do you see any resemblance.
Only in the funhouse known as soc.men.
I don't blame the "patriarchy" for the actions
of rapists. Never have.
: Curiously, Lenny gives far more justification for blaming "unmarried
: motherhood" than feminists give for blaming "patriarchy", but Kerry
: Keane doesn't get mad at feminists.
: I find myself at a loss to explain this inconsistency in Kerry Keane's
: behavior.
It's not at all inconsistent. I ignore most of what is in these
groups, and only respond to that which I encounter. I found
Visitor's posts difficult to wade through, so I skipped over
them. If anything, Lenny ought to be flattered that I took
the time to respond to his post.
: And BTW, this was an obvious Lenny parody, apparently inspired by one of
: VIS...@javanet.com's bigoted posts. To the best of my knowledge, Ms.
: Keane has not yet responded to that post.
Perhaps because I haven't bothered to read it?
Tallying my responses to individuals isn't a very
constructive use of your time--it's an indication of
nothing.
Christine A. Owens
Eric Conrad wrote:
>
> >BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
> >male and female consensus, which facilitate rape, and prevent its
> >reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
>
> Can I assume that you also find that social institutions (like Rape
> Crisis Centers) which facilitate false reporting of rape are
> responsible for false rape allegations, as are those who make them.
I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false reporting of
rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
Chris Owens
Luis Bueno
On 12 Jan 1998 12:56:45 -0600, hol...@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel B. Holzman)
wrote:
> In article <34B936A1...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
While looking for the articles posted by "Dorothy" that Rich was
indicating, I stumbled on to a thread called "Helping battered men (was:Re:
Antifeminist myths?"
The starting point is Message-ID <52iif7$k...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
It's a long thread, but sometime in the middle, I did see disbelief
against battered men (mainly by Carol Ann Hemmingway), some of it very
callous and dismissive. I'll keep looking for what Rich had referred to,
but this one thread has stopped me dead in my tracks for the moment -- it's
unbelievable.
--Lou
Kerry Keane
Christine A. Owens (cao...@redsuspenders.com) wrote:
: Eric Conrad wrote:
: I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false reporting of
: rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
In my experience, the staff and volunteers are explicitly instructed
to *not* attempt to influence the victim one way or the other
in this matter. Unless Eric has spent a lot more time at
these places than you or I have....
Eric Conrad
In article <34BAA...@redsuspenders.com>,
>>
>> >BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
>> >responsible for rape. I further hold social institutions, created by
>> >male and female consensus, which facilitate rape, and prevent its
>> >reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
>>
>> Can I assume that you also find that social institutions (like Rape
>> Crisis Centers) which facilitate false reporting of rape are
>> responsible for false rape allegations, as are those who make them.
>
>rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
>
Let's see...
Premise 1)
Rape crisis centers encourage women who claim to have been raped
to make a report.
(This assumption is based on statements made by the campus Rape Crisis
Center here.)
Premise 2)
Some women falsely claim that they have been raped.
(This is based on a study of false allegations by E. Kanin which indicates
that the percentage of police rape reports which are false is double
digit. Kanin's study is supported by some less controlled studies of
college campus rape reports. Further, there are numerous individual
cases of false reporting including a recent case in Texas in which the
accused spent twenty-five years in prison before being proved innocent
by DNA tests.)
Premise 3)
The intersection of the two sets of accusers in non-empty.
(It is certainly possible that rape crisis centers absolutely never
work with women who make false rape allegations. However, since
rape crisis centers don't investigate the truth of claims made
by their clients, I find it highly unlikely that this statement could
be false.)
Now, Chris, answer the question.
Eric Conrad
In article <69drm4$gn8$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
Kerry Keane <lud...@ripco.com> wrote:
>: And BTW, this was an obvious Lenny parody, apparently inspired by one of
>: VIS...@javanet.com's bigoted posts. To the best of my knowledge, Ms.
>: Keane has not yet responded to that post.
>
>Perhaps because I haven't bothered to read it?
In short, you took Lenny's parody out of context.
>Tallying my responses to individuals isn't a very
>constructive use of your time--
Probably true.
> it's an indication of
>nothing.
False. See above.
Rich
Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
>
> In article <34B936A1...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
> >
> >Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
> >believe a word of it skew the results?
> >
> >Rich
>
> Hm. I'm having trouble finding this in dejanews and I'd like to respond
> to Dorothy on it. Do you happen to have a thread title or message ID I
> could use to narrow my search?
Nope, and my archives are about 3000 miles away. Laurie responded, and I
think Avedon did as well, if you need verification.
Rich
Rich
>
> > In article <34B936A1...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
> > >
> > >Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
> > >believe a word of it skew the results?
> > >
> > >Rich
> >
> > Hm. I'm having trouble finding this in dejanews and I'd like to respond
> > to Dorothy on it. Do you happen to have a thread title or message ID I
> > could use to narrow my search?
>
> indicating, I stumbled on to a thread called "Helping battered men (was:Re:
> Antifeminist myths?"
>
> The starting point is Message-ID <52iif7$k...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
>
> It's a long thread, but sometime in the middle, I did see disbelief
> against battered men (mainly by Carol Ann Hemmingway), some of it very
> callous and dismissive. I'll keep looking for what Rich had referred to,
> but this one thread has stopped me dead in my tracks for the moment -- it's
> unbelievable.
And Avedon claims that I have problems with dejanews searches.
> --Lou
Rich
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <34BA9A69...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
>Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
>>
>> In article <34B936A1...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
>> >
>> >Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
>> >believe a word of it skew the results?
>> >
>> >Rich
>>
>> Hm. I'm having trouble finding this in dejanews and I'd like to respond
>> to Dorothy on it. Do you happen to have a thread title or message ID I
>> could use to narrow my search?
>
>think Avedon did as well, if you need verification.
I'm not looking to verify, I'm looking to LART.
But with any luck, Laurie and Avedon know which thread I should be
hunting for.
Kerry Keane
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: Premise 1)
: Rape crisis centers encourage women who claim to have been raped
: to make a report.
: (This assumption is based on statements made by the campus Rape Crisis
: Center here.)
Post the statements. Were they statements made to the general
public, as in a pamphlet or ad ("if raped you should..."), or
were they private ones made in the course of counseling?
There's a big difference, you know. I'm guessing that it is
the former, and I'm also guessing that the statement was to the
effect of, "If you've been raped, go immediately to a hospital"
or "If you've been raped, report it immediately." This is not
the same thing as encouraging a specific individual to press
charges. Only a fool would pressure an individual to do this,
and only in this case do you have a sequence that remotely
resembles logic. If someone made a statement encouraging
rape victims in general to go to the police, that remark
is addressed to rape victims not liars. Get it?
: Premise 2)
: Some women falsely claim that they have been raped.
I can see that Logic or even Intro to Philosophy were
not among the courses you had as an undergraduate.
This reasoning is really substandard. Your first
premise is not valid, because it cannot be
substantiated in any way. You would have to prove
that every woman claiming to have been raped was
steered directly to the police, not only to make
a report, but to file charges against an individual.
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <69e1jn$a18$1...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
Eric Conrad <eco...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>Premise 1)
> Rape crisis centers encourage women who claim to have been raped
> to make a report.
>
> (This assumption is based on statements made by the campus Rape Crisis
> Center here.)
This premise opens a can of worms.
Back in the '70s or '80s or so, the branch of the federal government
which gives grants out to rape crisis centers/hotlines/etc made it a
requirement that in order to receive funding that a center counsel women
to file a police report. The reason I know this is that my mother worked
at a center that gave up its funding because it refused to give this
counseling as a blanket rule. They felt that the decision should be made
by the woman, rather than handed to her by someone in a position of
authority.
Steen Goddik
> >> In article <34B8F06C...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous,
> >> >Yeah, I've heard that very same thing said by women WRT DV. Funny thing
> >> >was, when I tested it, it turned out to be a lie. Somewhat like Steen
> >> >Goddik's postings, feminist lies.
Since you evoke my name: When have I said that any DV perpetrator should
not be held responsible?
Rich
> >>
> >> In article <34B8F06C...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
> >> >> responsible for rape.
> >> >
> >> >was, when I tested it, it turned out to be a lie. Somewhat like Steen
> >> >Goddik's postings, feminist lies.
> >>
> >
> >Chris?
>
> Chris. The person to whom you were following up, who has not yet gone
> through this with you.
You were not responding to Chris, and you deleted her attribute.
> >> It's worth noting here that Rich only counts the negative responses,
> >> and ignores the positives. I.E., that Avedon, Laurie, myself, and several
> >> other feminists
> >
> >Laurie is not a feminist.
> >
> >> have unconditionally condemned the DV that Rich suffered
> >> and hold the woman who perpetrated it solely and wholly responsible for
> >> it doesn't register on his "test."
> >
> >And this is irrelevant to my text above.
>
> It's entirely relevant, Rich.
| Yeah, I've heard that very same thing said by women WRT DV. Funny thing
| was, when I tested it, it turned out to be a lie.
When I tested the claim, it *did* turn out to be a lie.
> You keep talking about the response you
> got a year and a half ago, pretenting that it is the nigh-universal
> feminist response,
It was the universal *female* response. David Nevers got the same treatment.
Things have not changed much since then.
> and have never once modified that view no matter how
> many feminists in the intervening year and a half have come forward with
> the direct opposite of your claim.
Nothing after the event contradicts the claim.
> You've had the direct data, and at
> this late date the only reason that it is not taken into account in your
> reasoning is that you decide not to take it into account.
No Daniel, you remain clueless. This is not an intellectual issue, but an
emotional issue. What you are telling me is that my feelings on the matter,
on what happened and how I was treated are wrong. And you are full of shit.
When I told you I did not want to talk about it, did you stop? No, eventually
you even went to dejanews (I had refrained from pointing out that avenue).
Everything you did and everything you have done shows a total disregard for
my feelings on the issue. I'd say that in it's own way, what you have done
has been about as upsetting as the female response. I'd tend to think that
you place yourself in a completely different box WRT this issue than I do.
I really think that you are far too dense for this to get across. And so
we will go through this yet again.
> >BTW, when feminists hold women responsible for false rape accusations, this
> >amounts to a pat on the back. Avedon would not penalize women who make false
> >rape accusations in any way.
>
> This is a mischaracterization of Avedon's position that she has gone over
> with you time and again.
Fine, tell me what penalties she advocates. You cannot and you know it.
> At this late date, the only reason you
> misinterpret her in this way is that you choose to.
You choose to attribute to Avedon something which she has stated that opposite
of. She says that penalties are a bad idea because they make women less likely to
recant. The fact is that she enables women to make serial false rape accusations
without penalty and the damage is done by the accusation alone and it is in no
way repaired by a recantation, which no women believes anyway. Women require
zero evidence to believe a rape accusation, but a recantation requires absolute
proof and plenty of it.
Isn't it funny that you do what you accuse me of? It is even funnier that
Avedon mischaracterized herself on this one issue.
> >When you say that feminists hold women "responsible"
> >this does not in any way correspond to the way feminists hold men responsible.
> >One involves penalties, the other feminists reward and support. Use your
> >Captain Comet decoder ring to figure out which they reward and which they
> >punish.
>
> Not that I expect this to get taken into account in your polling, but I
> think J should have been prosecuted, convicted, and gotten to go through
> all the wonderful things that some of the men who pull the same shit that
> she did get to go through.
And here I tend to go with Avedon, jail would solve nothing and I'd have no
more to say to the police than to you. I think these matters occur because
of the socialization that supports it and defends it and denies that it is
a problem. And chances are good that had I made a complaint I would end up in
jail and for some odd reason I find this less than desirable. YMMV.
> >> That does tend to skew the results.
> >
> >Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
> >believe a word of it skew the results?
>
> Since you count Dorothy's response but discount all the responses
> believing you, yes it does.
You hold me guilty in other ways, act as if my feelings on the issue are
wrong when not ignoring them outright and are just generally unpleasant about
it. I suggest that you would not treat a female DV victim this way.
Rich
Blair Zajac
In article <69e70h$qmh$1...@gail.ripco.com>, lud...@ripco.com (Kerry Keane) wrote:
>Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: Premise 1)
>: Rape crisis centers encourage women who claim to have been raped
>: to make a report.
>
>: (This assumption is based on statements made by the campus Rape Crisis
>: Center here.)
>
>Post the statements. Were they statements made to the general
>public, as in a pamphlet or ad ("if raped you should..."), or
>were they private ones made in the course of counseling?
>There's a big difference, you know. I'm guessing that it is
>the former, and I'm also guessing that the statement was to the
>effect of, "If you've been raped, go immediately to a hospital"
>or "If you've been raped, report it immediately." This is not
>the same thing as encouraging a specific individual to press
>charges. Only a fool would pressure an individual to do this,
>and only in this case do you have a sequence that remotely
>resembles logic. If someone made a statement encouraging
>rape victims in general to go to the police, that remark
>is addressed to rape victims not liars. Get it?
>
>: Premise 2)
>: Some women falsely claim that they have been raped.
>
>
>I can see that Logic or even Intro to Philosophy were
>not among the courses you had as an undergraduate.
>This reasoning is really substandard. Your first
>premise is not valid, because it cannot be
>substantiated in any way. You would have to prove
>that every woman claiming to have been raped was
>steered directly to the police, not only to make
>a report, but to file charges against an individual.
Well, the great Blair had a big insight into the thinking (?) processes of
at least some females.
What caught my attention is that Kerry says "You would have to prove that
every woman claiming to have been raped was steered directly to the police
...."
Note that she writes "every." And of course, that is the great insight!
These women are binary thinkers! Once the signal crosses the threshold, it
is all. If it doesn't, then it is zero.
So, based on that thinking process, you can now understand the reason for
the illogical postings of these feminists. Of course, it helps that the
cross-over point is set quite low.
--
Zajac says, 'Logic and feminism are antonyms.'
Laurie S.
Rich <pay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >Rich
>>
>> Hm. I'm having trouble finding this in dejanews and I'd like to respond
>> to Dorothy on it. Do you happen to have a thread title or message ID I
>> could use to narrow my search?
>
>Nope, and my archives are about 3000 miles away. Laurie responded, and I
>think Avedon did as well, if you need verification.
>
>Rich
Well, the confusing part may be that "recently" might be open to
interpretation. I think it was maybe a couple of months ago, and as
far as a thread title, I think it was one of those long threads that
takes on a bunch of different focuses before it dies.
In essense, I think Dorothy said that she thought J was a figment of
Rich's imagination, that he was making it all up. I *might* have a
copy of it somewhere if I happened to d/l it at my former house (I
used to go there now and then to update headers because I will be
getting that HD one of these days).
Laurie
Eric Conrad
In article <69e70h$qmh$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
Kerry Keane <lud...@ripco.com> wrote:
>Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>I can see that Logic or even Intro to Philosophy were
>not among the courses you had as an undergraduate.
>This reasoning is really substandard. Your first
>premise is not valid, because it cannot be
>substantiated in any way.
I can see that you have never had a course in logic. The
word valid only applies to argument forms. By the way you
snipped the critical third premise. Taking the three premises
together, one obtains the conclusion that "Rape crisis centers
occasionally (possibly inadvertently) encourage false reporting
of rape."
Eric Conrad
In article <69e7kd$e...@xochi.tezcat.com>,
Daniel B. Holzman <hol...@xochi.tezcat.com> wrote:
>In article <69e1jn$a18$1...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
>>
>>Premise 1)
>> Rape crisis centers encourage women who claim to have been raped
>> to make a report.
>>
>> (This assumption is based on statements made by the campus Rape Crisis
>> Center here.)
>
>
>Back in the '70s or '80s or so, the branch of the federal government
>which gives grants out to rape crisis centers/hotlines/etc made it a
>requirement that in order to receive funding that a center counsel women
>to file a police report. The reason I know this is that my mother worked
>at a center that gave up its funding because it refused to give this
>counseling as a blanket rule. They felt that the decision should be made
>by the woman, rather than handed to her by someone in a position of
>authority.
That may explain the statements that I read. I would guess that the
Campus Rape Crisis Center receives some federal funding.
So, for anyone who is following this discussion... Let me attempt to
restate the issue.
Chris Owens says she blames some institutions for rape.
I asked Chris Owens whether, in view of the fact that rape crisis
centers must occasionally encourage women to make false reports,
does she also blame rape crisis centers for false rape allegations.
In light of Daniel's observation, let me modify my question:
Chris Owens, do you blame federally funded rape crisis centers for
false rape allegations?
Kerry Keane
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: In article <69e70h$qmh$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
: Kerry Keane <lud...@ripco.com> wrote:
: I can see that you have never had a course in logic. The
: word valid only applies to argument forms.
Well aware of that, thanks. Are we not allowed to type in
the wrong word once in a while? It's just that I was
laughing so hard when you justified your opinions
with these little numbered statements, as if that
would make it any more "scientific".
: By the way you
: snipped the critical third premise.
It doesn't matter, because there is no way you
can jump from the first...to anywhere. Especially
when you paraphrase the alleged "encouragement",
instead of presenting it to us *verbatim*.
Face it, Eric, you've stepped in a pile here;
you've made an assertion that you can't
substantiate.
We all do it sometimes.
: Taking the three premises
: together, one obtains the conclusion that "Rape crisis centers
: occasionally (possibly inadvertently) encourage false reporting
: of rape."
Well, I don't recall the "occasionally" and "inadvertently"
the first time around--have you amended it, perhaps?
One rape crisis center can in no way be logically made to
stand for all, for one thing. And you still haven't posted the
"statement" by the center. Furthermore, if a woman *were*
lying, why in hell would she require the moral support of
a rape crisis center in order to file charges? But
moral decision-making is not something that can be
described in a neat three-point thesis like we learn
about in school. Only lived experience (and self-knowledge)
can give us some understanding of how people tend to
behave when doing something immoral; it's called "common sense".
Rod Van Mechelen
Laurie makes a very good point. The fact rapists are more likely to have
grown up in a single-parent household without a family man present than
in a two parent or extended family household is irrelevant. So stop trying
to confuse the issue with facts!
Geez, you'd think some people actually wanted to find a way to prevent
rape. They just don't get it. Demonizing men is far more important.
What's the pain and suffering of a few thousand women compared to the
benefit millions of women will enjoy when the pop feminists rule?
--
Rod Van Mechelen
The Backlash!
http://www.backlash.com
Laurie S. <lea...@northernnet.com> wrote in article
<34b5af29....@news.northernnet.com>...
> Talk.rape added.
>
>
> Good fucking _grief_.
>
> People rape for a myriad of reasons, and guess what, Lenny? They make
> that decision ... not their victims, not their mothers, not their
> fathers, not pornography, not the unfair world, not people who treat
> them shabbily.
>
> It's ludicrous to attribute a rapist mentality to simply being raised
> in a single-parent household without a "family man" present.
>
> I'm not going to waste any more time over this rapist-excusing drivel.
>
> Laurie
Paul
Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in article
<34BAA...@redsuspenders.com>...
> Eric Conrad wrote:
> >
> > >BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
> > >responsible for rape. I further hold social institutions, created by
> > >male and female consensus, which facilitate rape, and prevent its
> > >reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
> >
> > Can I assume that you also find that social institutions (like Rape
> > Crisis Centers) which facilitate false reporting of rape are
> > responsible for false rape allegations, as are those who make them.
>
> I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false reporting of
> rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
Uhm, how did you come to understand him to say that? He didn't. He said
"social" institutions; like NOW, like ACW, like the various sisterhoods of
feminism who preach that all men are rapists, that all sex is rape, and
that false accusations of rape are positive experiences for men. Obviously
you don't understand the difference between a social institution and
physical institution. Glad I could clear it up for you. Paul Laird
>
> Chris Owens
>
Christine A. Owens
Paul wrote:
>
> Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in article
> <34BAA...@redsuspenders.com>...
> > Eric Conrad wrote:
> > >
> > > >BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit rape
> > > >responsible for rape. I further hold social institutions, created by
> > > >male and female consensus, which facilitate rape, and prevent its
> > > >reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
> > >
> > > Can I assume that you also find that social institutions (like Rape
> > > Crisis Centers) which facilitate false reporting of rape are
> > > responsible for false rape allegations, as are those who make them.
> >
> > I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false reporting of
>
> > rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
>
> Uhm, how did you come to understand him to say that? He didn't.
Well, yes, he did. Check the original post, where he SPECIFICALLY
cites rape crisis centers; hence, my question.
Chris Owens
Eric Conrad
In article <69eg2r$5h6$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
Kerry Keane <lud...@ripco.com> wrote:
>Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: Taking the three premises
>: together, one obtains the conclusion that "Rape crisis centers
>: occasionally (possibly inadvertently) encourage false reporting
>: of rape."
>
>Well, I don't recall the "occasionally" and "inadvertently"
>the first time around--have you amended it, perhaps?
Neither "occasionally" nor "inadvertently" matter. The
conclusion follows from the given premises. As to premise
#1, I did make the assumption that the Ohio State Rape Crisis
Center was typical in encouraging victims to report rape.
(And I clearly stated that assumption. Curiously, you don't
call Chris Owens to task for failure to justify her claim that
certain institutions which are neither rapists nor accessories
to rape can be blamed for rape. More on that below...)
According to Daniel Holtzman, this is required of federal funded
rape crisis centers, so it turns out that my leap of faith in
premise #1 reflected good intuition.
For your information:
occassionally = at least one = some
I certainly never intended my original statement to suggest that
every rape report encourage by a rape crisis center wa false.
inadverently
One can encourage behavior without intending to.
>One rape crisis center can in no way be logically made to
>stand for all, for one thing.
Never said it could. I merely assumed that the Ohio State
RCC was typical. That was why I called the statement a
premise. But evidently you never encountered the word
in your logic course.
>(snip) Furthermore, if a woman *were*
>lying, why in hell would she require the moral support of
>a rape crisis center in order to file charges?
Why are you so narrow-minded? This is like asking me why
people might commit murder or rape. There are some irational
people in the world.
And I would point out there may be a number of other dynamics
at play. You claim to have read Kanin. You are therefore
aware of the case in which a therapist encoraged a client to
file a false rape report. He accompanied her to the police station.
The woman later retracted the complaint, admitting that she
made up the story to impress the therapist.
> But
>moral decision-making is not something that can be
>described in a neat three-point thesis like we learn
>about in school.
And I was not making a moral judgment. I was questioning
Chris Owens' statement that she blames certain institutions
for rape. My suspicion is that it involves a moral double
standard.
> Only lived experience (and self-knowledge)
>can give us some understanding of how people tend to
>behave when doing something immoral; it's called "common sense".
And sometimes common sense leads people to double standards in
moral expectations. (A typical example is when abuse shelters
blame men and excuse women for abuse whenever there is two-way
violence.)
Ishmael
Rich wrote in message <34BAD1B7...@earthlink.net>...
>You hold me guilty in other ways, act as if my feelings on the issue are
>wrong when not ignoring them outright and are just generally unpleasant
about
>it. I suggest that you would not treat a female DV victim this way.
LOL. And I suggest that you would treat a woman stating that she had been
raped and hadn't reported with the way. You would want to know why she
didn't report the rape - and when the woman provided the reasons she
wouldn't report the rape, you would imply that if she didn't have the
courage to report it, it must not have happened.
Funny the way prejudice and bias works - some days you get the bear, and
some days the bear gets you.
I personally don't doubt your story - I don't think you would make it up
just to provide yourself with increased credibility on the newsgroup. I
believe that you were assaulted repeated by J. What I don't understand is
how you can ask everyone else to operate on the basis of principle when you
were not willing to do so yourself.
>
>Rich
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <34BAD1B7...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
>
>> You've had the direct data, and at
>> this late date the only reason that it is not taken into account in your
>> reasoning is that you decide not to take it into account.
>
>No Daniel, you remain clueless. This is not an intellectual issue, but an
>emotional issue. What you are telling me is that my feelings on the matter,
>on what happened and how I was treated are wrong. And you are full of shit.
>When I told you I did not want to talk about it, did you stop? No, eventually
>you even went to dejanews (I had refrained from pointing out that avenue).
>Everything you did and everything you have done shows a total disregard for
>my feelings on the issue. I'd say that in it's own way, what you have done
>has been about as upsetting as the female response. I'd tend to think that
>you place yourself in a completely different box WRT this issue than I do.
>
>I really think that you are far too dense for this to get across. And so
>we will go through this yet again.
For someone who doesn't want to talk about it, you sure do bring it up a
whole lot. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not telling you you're wrong to feel as you do over how you were
treated on alt.feminism when you ran your "test." I am telling you that
you are wrong to portray that "test" as the sum total of the reactions
from females, feminists, or both to your account. One's about you, the
other's about a whole bunch of people.
But you also don't get to hold anyone other than the individual women who
mistreated you responsible for their actions. You're the one full of
shit when you try to lay that at the feet of feminists as a whole, or
women as a whole, or whatever it is that you think you managed to test a
year ago. If that's how you feel, that's your business, but it isn't
anyone else's job to play along.
>> >BTW, when feminists hold women responsible for false rape accusations, this
>> >amounts to a pat on the back. Avedon would not penalize women who make false
>> >rape accusations in any way.
>>
>> This is a mischaracterization of Avedon's position that she has gone over
>> with you time and again.
>
>Fine, tell me what penalties she advocates. You cannot and you know it.
>
>> At this late date, the only reason you
>> misinterpret her in this way is that you choose to.
>
>You choose to attribute to Avedon something which she has stated that opposite
>of. She says that penalties are a bad idea because they make women less likely to
>recant. The fact is that she enables women to make serial false rape accusations
>without penalty and the damage is done by the accusation alone and it is in no
>way repaired by a recantation, which no women believes anyway. Women require
>zero evidence to believe a rape accusation, but a recantation requires absolute
>proof and plenty of it.
The fact is that Avedon doesn't support the penal system in the first
place.
The fact is that there's a difference between saying that something's a
bad idea and asking if something's a good idea.
The fact is that Avedon's answer to your questions has been "I don't
know."
The fact is that you don't want to accept that.
The fact is that that's your problem.
>> Not that I expect this to get taken into account in your polling, but I
>> think J should have been prosecuted, convicted, and gotten to go through
>> all the wonderful things that some of the men who pull the same shit that
>> she did get to go through.
>
>And here I tend to go with Avedon, jail would solve nothing and I'd have no
>more to say to the police than to you. I think these matters occur because
>of the socialization that supports it and defends it and denies that it is
>a problem. And chances are good that had I made a complaint I would end up in
>jail and for some odd reason I find this less than desirable. YMMV.
We get into a whole other can of worms that ties into some of Avedon's
aforementioned problems with the penal system with this one. Much larger
discussion. Jail should be a place where people are kept away from
society while issues like "they tend to beat people" are addressed -- and
we agree why these matters occur.
And I also understand why you didn't press charges. That's a third issue
still.
>> >> That does tend to skew the results.
>> >
>> >Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
>> >believe a word of it skew the results?
>>
>> Since you count Dorothy's response but discount all the responses
>> believing you, yes it does.
>
>You hold me guilty in other ways, act as if my feelings on the issue are
>wrong when not ignoring them outright and are just generally unpleasant about
>it. I suggest that you would not treat a female DV victim this way.
And you suggest wrongly. When female DV survivors have done the same
stuff you're doing, I've called them on it.
Kerry Keane
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: And I would point out there may be a number of other dynamics
: at play. You claim to have read Kanin. You are therefore
: aware of the case in which a therapist encoraged a client to
: file a false rape report. He accompanied her to the police station.
: The woman later retracted the complaint, admitting that she
: made up the story to impress the therapist.
So therapists are doing this now, too? What's the
solution; are we to ban therapy?
You still have to rescind your indictment of shelters,
federal or otherwise. If shelters are forced by
law to encourage victims to make a report (not the
same thing as filing charges, anyway), then it
is your government and your laws which are responsible.
And you've made a fool of yourself.
: And I was not making a moral judgment. I was questioning
: Chris Owens' statement that she blames certain institutions
: for rape. My suspicion is that it involves a moral double
: standard.
My impression was that she blames legal institutions and
police for not taking some rapes seriously. Certainly if rapists
get away with it because, say, the victim was deemed
to be a "slut", they will therefore be free to rape
again and again. Is this clear, or do I have to put
little numbers in front of my points for it to be a sound
argument?
Mark Evans
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: In article <schaferE...@netcom.com>,
: Lenny Schafer <sch...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Laurie S. <lea...@northernnet.com> wrote:
: >: The simple presence or absence of one parent is NOT in itself enough
: >: to make a difference between someone becoming a rapist or not.
: >
: >Still you gloss over the contributions women make to the culture of rape.
:
: Lenny, you sound just like a feminist. ;-)
I though that was part of the point. That
they used "feminist" lanugage in a way
which was completly the opposite to
"feminism".
Mark Evans
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: individuals do, some men get mad. When Lenny blames "unmarried motherhood"
: for the same things, Kerry Keane gets mad. Do you see any resemblance.
:
: Curiously, Lenny gives far more justification for blaming "unmarried
Not really curious, Lenny dosn't have a huge organisation to
back up the POV expressed. So in compensation they use reasoned
argument.
: motherhood" than feminists give for blaming "patriarchy", but Kerry
: Keane doesn't get mad at feminists.
Mark Evans
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
: In article <34BAA...@redsuspenders.com>,
: Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
: >Eric Conrad wrote:
: >>
: >
: >I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false reporting of
: >Chris Owens
:
: Let's see...
:
: Premise 1)
: Rape crisis centers encourage women who claim to have been raped
: to make a report.
:
: (This assumption is based on statements made by the campus Rape Crisis
: Center here.)
Though this may well not apply to all, e.g. only to those of a specific
type or geographical area. Thus it is quite possible for people to find
examples of such orgainsations which don't encourage false, mistaken
or malicious reports.
Avedon Carol
On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 18:26:30 -0800, "J.D." <roc...@netvision.net.il>
wrote:
>80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless
>homes. (Source: Criminal Justic & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
Er, what percentage of all rapists are "motivated with displaced
anger"?
--
A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship
ave...@cix.co.uk http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police
protection from their slaves." - Kim Stanley Robinson
Note: The reply field lies.
Rich
How could this be since they do not question the accuracy of any woman's
claim? This will never ever be an issue.
Rich
Val
I have not known rape crisis centers to encourage reporting of rape.
Most feel that the victim should decide whether or not to report.
Counselors are available to give support should the woman (or man!)
report it.
Val
It isn't their job to find out if the victim is lying or not. Just how
exactly do you propose that they do that?
Paul
Then HE does not know the difference between social institutions and
physical ones. Paul Laird
Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in article
<34BB85...@redsuspenders.com>...
> Paul wrote:
> >
> > Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in article
> > <34BAA...@redsuspenders.com>...
> > > Eric Conrad wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit
rape
> > > > >responsible for rape. I further hold social institutions, created
by
> > > > >male and female consensus, which facilitate rape, and prevent its
> > > > >reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
> > > >
> > > > Can I assume that you also find that social institutions (like Rape
> > > > Crisis Centers) which facilitate false reporting of rape are
> > > > responsible for false rape allegations, as are those who make them.
> > >
> > > I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false
reporting of
> >
> > > rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
> >
averti
Val wrote:
[...]
>
> Rich wrote:
> >
> > Mark Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> > > : In article <34BAA...@redsuspenders.com>,
> > > : Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
> > > : >Eric Conrad wrote:
> > > : >>
> > > : >
> > > : >I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false reporting of
> > > : >rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
I'd be interested in that as well. Any reporting mechanism
''facilitates'' all reporting, true and false. It's like saying
that automobiles facilitate drunk driving.
> > > : >
> > > : >Chris Owens
> > > :
> > > : Let's see...
> > > :
> > > : Premise 1)
> > > : Rape crisis centers encourage women who claim to have been raped
> > > : to make a report.
> > > :
> > > : (This assumption is based on statements made by the campus Rape Crisis
> > > : Center here.)
> > >
> > > Though this may well not apply to all, e.g. only to those of a specific
> > > type or geographical area. Thus it is quite possible for people to find
> > > examples of such orgainsations which don't encourage false, mistaken
> > > or malicious reports.
> >
> > How could this be since they do not question the accuracy of any woman's
> > claim? This will never ever be an issue.
> >
> > Rich
>
> It isn't their job to find out if the victim is lying or not. Just how
> exactly do you propose that they do that?
Exactly. I can't imagine the consequences to the majority of
legitimate rape victims if the facilities had to take on some
sort of investigative role. IF filing a false rape report is
a criminal action, it's in the purview of the criminal
authorities to deal with it. It's in the purview of the
criminal authorities to DETERMINE the falsity.
Avedon Carol
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:58:50 GMT, lu...@NOSPAM.bueno.net (Luis Bueno)
wrote:
>
> The starting point is Message-ID <52iif7$k...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
>
> It's a long thread, but sometime in the middle, I did see disbelief
>against battered men (mainly by Carol Ann Hemmingway), some of it very
>callous and dismissive. I'll keep looking for what Rich had referred to,
>but this one thread has stopped me dead in my tracks for the moment -- it's
>unbelievable.
Lou, almost any thread with Carol Ann Hemmingway in it is usually
pretty unbelievable. (I used those qualifiers only because I can't
claim to have seen all her posts.) Carol can deny _anything_ you tell
her about, well, anything. She has her mind made up, yessir. It's
eerie.
Trust me, Rich was in a pretty horrible situation with J, and there's
no excuse for what she did.
Rich
I have heard of many men who were turned away and even those who
were referred to counseling for rapists (all men are rapists it seems),
but these is no evidence of shelters actually taking men in, despite
all the billions of federal aid they receive and the supposed meaning
of their taking such aid.
Rich
Rich
Val wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
> >
> > Mark Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> > > : In article <34BAA...@redsuspenders.com>,
> > > : Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:
> > > : >Eric Conrad wrote:
> > > : >>
> > > : >
> > > : >I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false reporting of
> > > : >rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
> > > : >Chris Owens
> > > :
> > > : Let's see...
> > > :
> > > : Premise 1)
> > > : Rape crisis centers encourage women who claim to have been raped
> > > : to make a report.
> > > :
> > > : (This assumption is based on statements made by the campus Rape Crisis
> > > : Center here.)
> > >
> > > Though this may well not apply to all, e.g. only to those of a specific
> > > type or geographical area. Thus it is quite possible for people to find
> > > examples of such orgainsations which don't encourage false, mistaken
> > > or malicious reports.
> >
> > How could this be since they do not question the accuracy of any woman's
> > claim? This will never ever be an issue.
> >
> > Rich
>
> It isn't their job to find out if the victim is lying or not. Just how
> exactly do you propose that they do that?
The point being that they are just as supportive of false rape accusations
as they are of real rapes. The simply do not care. They have no responsibilities
should they discover that a rape accusation was false, no obligation to let
authorities know about an injustice in progress. Instead they are pressured
into pressuring all women to make accusations, whether they were raped or not.
Rich
Val
Rich,
All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers? This is getting
old, Rich.
Your anger and hostility sometimes interfer with your ability to think
clearly. Someone says something -- and you say that they say
something else. Someone says something and you draw incorrect
conclusions from what they say. Someone says something and you come
up with non sequiturs.
I'm quite familiar with rage. It isn't healthy.
Take a piece of friendly advice: get thee to a counselor, therapist,
minister, and/or self-help group.
It's one thing to discuss issues and have opposing viewpoints. It's
something else when someone does this broken-record thing. You aren't
the only person in the world who has been traumatized. Do something
different for yourself. Whatever you are doing now is just
reinforcing and aggravating your hostility.
Max Burke
>Val wrote in message <34BD9B...@stripe.colorado.edu>...
>Rich,
>All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers? This is getting
>old, Rich.
Has Rich EVER said 'All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers?'
>Your anger and hostility sometimes interfer with your ability to think
>clearly. Someone says something -- and you say that they say
>something else. Someone says something and you draw incorrect
>conclusions from what they say. Someone says something and you come
>up with non sequiturs.
Typical response..... Commenting that your debating 'opponent' has some
sort of problem..... (totally irrelevant but it might help to silence your opponent)....
>I'm quite familiar with rage. It isn't healthy.
Huh????
>Take a piece of friendly advice: get thee to a counselor, therapist,
>minister, and/or self-help group.
Another typical response, debate the points raised by your opponent, not
what you think of your opponent....
>It's one thing to discuss issues and have opposing viewpoints. It's
>something else when someone does this broken-record thing.
Why is it a broken record 'thing'? Because you have nothing relevant to say?
because you cant provide any real facts that prove Rich wrong?
>You aren't the only person in the world who has been traumatized. Do something
>different for yourself. Whatever you are doing now is just
>reinforcing and aggravating your hostility.
Irrelevant comments from you and your belief's about his supposed 'mental state' add nothing
to the debate......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Myth: Studies show men are more violent toward their partner than women.
Facts: The Second National Family Survey found that women are more violent than
men in relationships. Women said they threw objects, slapped, kicked, bit, punched,
threatened with a knife or gun, and beat their spouse more than the men surveyed.
Women also said they used a knife or gun against their partner at the same rate of men.
--
mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz
Replace the obvious with IHUG to reply via email
Emma
Max Burke wrote:
> +AD4-Val wrote in message +ADw-34BD9BAC.6AA4+AEA-stripe.colorado.edu+AD4-...
>
> +AD4-Rich,
> +AD4-All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers? This is getting
> +AD4-old, Rich.
>
> Has Rich EVER said 'All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers?'
Frequently..especially the second. Do you read his posts, Max?
> +AD4-Your anger and hostility sometimes interfer with your ability to think
> +AD4-clearly. Someone says something -- and you say that they say
> +AD4-something else. Someone says something and you draw incorrect
> +AD4-conclusions from what they say. Someone says something and you come
> +AD4-up with non sequiturs.
>
> Typical response..... Commenting that your debating 'opponent' has some
> sort of problem..... (totally irrelevant but it might help to silence your opponent)....
Typical of who Max? All feminists? Again, do you read his posts?
> +AD4-I'm quite familiar with rage. It isn't healthy.
>
> Huh????
>
> +AD4-Take a piece of friendly advice: get thee to a counselor, therapist,
> +AD4-minister, and/or self-help group.
>
> Another typical response, debate the points raised by your opponent, not
> what you think of your opponent....
Again, typical of WHO?
> +AD4-It's one thing to discuss issues and have opposing viewpoints. It's
> +AD4-something else when someone does this broken-record thing.
>
> Why is it a broken record 'thing'? Because you have nothing relevant to say?
> because you cant provide any real facts that prove Rich wrong?
Because he uses the same lines over and over whatever the argument is about. That is a broken
record thing.
> +AD4-You aren't the only person in the world who has been traumatized. Do something
> +AD4-different for yourself. Whatever you are doing now is just
> +AD4-reinforcing and aggravating your hostility.
>
> Irrelevant comments from you and your belief's about his supposed 'mental state' add nothing
> to the debate......
So what exactly have you added with this post, Max? (about the same as me, I know...but then Im
not going around with the self-righteous attitude you are).
Max Burke
>Emma wrote in message <34BDCF24...@deletethis.globalnet.co.uk>...
>>Max Burke wrote:
>> >Val wrote in message <34BD9B...@stripe.colorado.edu>...
>> Has Rich EVER said 'All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers?'
>Frequently..especially the second. Do you read his posts, Max?
Not all of them, no.... (dang, must have missed that one...) 8-|
>>> Your anger and hostility sometimes interfer with your ability to think
>>>clearly. Someone says something -- and you say that they say
>>>something else. Someone says something and you draw incorrect
>>>conclusions from what they say. Someone says something and you come
>>>up with non sequiturs.
>> Typical response..... Commenting that your debating 'opponent' has some
>> sort of problem..... (totally irrelevant but it might help to silence your opponent)....
>Typical of who Max? All feminists? Again, do you read his posts?
Feeling a bit defensive are we???
It is a typical trait of the majority of pro feminist women here to post
personal comment's about their opponents....(Yourself included...).
>>>I'm quite familiar with rage. It isn't healthy.
>> Huh????
>>>Take a piece of friendly advice: get thee to a counselor, therapist,
>>>minister, and/or self-help group.
>> Another typical response, debate the points raised by your opponent, not
>> what you think of your opponent....
>Again, typical of WHO?
See above....
>>>It's one thing to discuss issues and have opposing viewpoints. It's
>>>something else when someone does this broken-record thing.
>> Why is it a broken record 'thing'? Because you have nothing relevant to say?
>> because you cant provide any real facts that prove Rich wrong?
>Because he uses the same lines over and over whatever the argument is about. That is a broken
>record thing.
Maybe he has to keep repeating himself so that the point he is trying to make
gets through (why he keeps trying is another matter, IMHO he is extremely patient...)
>>>You aren't the only person in the world who has been traumatized. Do something
>>>different for yourself. Whatever you are doing now is just
>>>reinforcing and aggravating your hostility.
>> Irrelevant comments from you and your belief's about his supposed 'mental state' add nothing
>> to the debate......
>So what exactly have you added with this post, Max? (about the same as me, I know...but then Im
>not going around with the self-righteous attitude you are).
Yeah right..... (talk about self righteous!!!)
Emma proves my argument... (what justifies this 'self righteous attitude' comment of yours)....
IMO Rich is an 'expert' at touching the 'raw nerve' of most of the pro feminist women in
these news groups, going by the rabid howls of 'rage' he gets out of most of you... 8-))))
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Women must take personal responsibilities for the path they choose and stop whining
about the options they have thereby lost.
Camille Paglia, Vamps & Tramps, p. 89.
Emma
Max Burke wrote in code again:
> +AD4-Emma wrote in message +ADw-34BDCF24.5DFF702C+AEA-deletethis.globalnet.co.uk+AD4-...
>
>
> +AD4-Frequently..especially the second. Do you read his posts, Max?
>
> Not all of them, no....
Joking aside, this must be why you miss what other people are on about then.
> (dang, must have missed that one...) 8-+AHw-
<snip>
> +AD4APg- Typical response..... Commenting that your debating 'opponent' has some
> +AD4APg- sort of problem..... (totally irrelevant but it might help to silence your opponent)....
>
> +AD4-Typical of who Max? All feminists? Again, do you read his posts?
>
> Feeling a bit defensive are we???
>
> It is a typical trait of the majority of pro feminist women here to post
> personal comment's about their opponents....(Yourself included...).
The "majority" is a short step from "all" feminists. No wonder you cant see the problems with Rich's
'arguments'. You are duplicating them yourself.
> +AD4-Because he uses the same lines over and over whatever the argument is about. That is a broken
> +AD4-record thing.
>
> Maybe he has to keep repeating himself so that the point he is trying to make
> gets through
Arguing with Rich is like banging your head against the wall. You can be guaranteed that whatever the
topic, he will mention "VAWA", "AA", "ERA", "Jan Shearer", "All feminists", or "nobody loves me" (or
words to that effect). It gets tedious and it is less than productive. Admittedly, there are people who
slow down debate on both sides (myself included sometimes) but to uphold Rich as a shining example of how
to debate is to be completely misinformed about the whole thing.
> (why he keeps trying is another matter, IMHO he is extremely patient...)
IMHO He should be a patient.
> +AD4-So what exactly have you added with this post, Max? (about the same as me, I know...but then Im
> +AD4-not going around with the self-righteous attitude you are).
>
> Yeah right..... (talk about self righteous+ACEAIQAh-)
>
> Emma proves my argument... (what justifies this 'self righteous attitude' comment of yours)....
No...you have neither proven that Rich is good at discussing issues or is correct in his assertions about
all/the majority of feminists, nor have you answered my question about what YOUR comments brought to this
discussion (after you told Val she brought nothing to it). Bearing in mind that your argument has twisted
and turned like a twisty turny thing, what point have I proven for you(I cant see that you have one)?
> IMO Rich is an 'expert' at touching the 'raw nerve' of most of the pro feminist women in
> these news groups, going by the rabid howls of 'rage' he gets out of most of you... 8-))))
Howls of rage???? Poor deluded child...You too, need some help. Do you have any opinions of your own Max?
Or am I right in assuming you pick up on little bits of other people's arguments, throw in your two pence
worth, get confused because to go further would mean expressing an opinion of your own, and then bottle
it and run? Seems that way to me.
Val
Max Burke wrote:
>
> +AD4-Val wrote in message +ADw-34BD9BAC.6AA4+AEA-stripe.colorado.edu+AD4-...
>
> +AD4-Rich,
> +AD4-All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers? This is getting
> +AD4-old, Rich.
>
Sure he does. It's his shtick.
>
> +AD4-Your anger and hostility sometimes interfer with your ability to think
> +AD4-clearly. Someone says something -- and you say that they say
> +AD4-something else. Someone says something and you draw incorrect
> +AD4-conclusions from what they say. Someone says something and you come
> +AD4-up with non sequiturs.
>
> Typical response..... Commenting that your debating 'opponent' has some
> sort of problem..... (totally irrelevant but it might help to silence your opponent)....
Not everyone who disagrees with me has a problem. Careful
examination of Rich's posts reveals that he has a problem. He
overgeneralizes and doesn't change his mind about anything no matter
what new information is presented. His posts are sometimes
irrational.
>
>
> +AD4-Take a piece of friendly advice: get thee to a counselor, therapist,
> +AD4-minister, and/or self-help group.
>
> Another typical response, debate the points raised by your opponent, not
> what you think of your opponent....
>
When one of the parties plays a broken record, it is no longer a
debate. It becomes 2 separate monologues.
> +AD4-It's one thing to discuss issues and have opposing viewpoints. It's
> +AD4-something else when someone does this broken-record thing.
>
> Why is it a broken record 'thing'? Because you have nothing relevant to say?
> because you cant provide any real facts that prove Rich wrong?
There have been NUMEROUS posts that demonstrated that Rich was
incorrect or only partially correct.
>
> +AD4-You aren't the only person in the world who has been traumatized. Do something
> +AD4-different for yourself. Whatever you are doing now is just
> +AD4-reinforcing and aggravating your hostility.
>
> Irrelevant comments from you and your belief's about his supposed 'mental state' add nothing
> to the debate......
Like I said before, there is no debate.
Luis Bueno
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:17:07 GMT, ave...@thirdworld.uk (Avedon Carol) wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:58:50 GMT, lu...@NOSPAM.bueno.net (Luis Bueno)
> wrote:
>
> >
> > The starting point is Message-ID <52iif7$k...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
> >
> > It's a long thread, but sometime in the middle, I did see disbelief
> >against battered men (mainly by Carol Ann Hemmingway), some of it very
> >callous and dismissive. I'll keep looking for what Rich had referred to,
> >but this one thread has stopped me dead in my tracks for the moment -- it's
> >unbelievable.
>
> Lou, almost any thread with Carol Ann Hemmingway in it is usually
> pretty unbelievable. (I used those qualifiers only because I can't
> claim to have seen all her posts.) Carol can deny _anything_ you tell
> her about, well, anything. She has her mind made up, yessir. It's
> eerie.
I've noticed that when speaking to either you, David Loftus or even
Programmer Access, Carol Ann tends to shift the contradictions according to
the current denial that's somehow required for a particular posting, even if
that current denial tends to be at odds with an earlier statement.
> Trust me, Rich was in a pretty horrible situation with J, and there's
> no excuse for what she did.
Could you suggest which thread I should read that discusses this
particular issue?
--Lou
averti
Max Burke wrote:
>
> +AD4-Val wrote in message +ADw-34BD9BAC.6AA4+AEA-stripe.colorado.edu+AD4-...
>
> +AD4-Rich,
> +AD4-All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers? This is getting
> +AD4-old, Rich.
>
> Has Rich EVER said 'All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers?'
Not more than two or three times a day.
>
> +AD4-Your anger and hostility sometimes interfer with your ability to think
> +AD4-clearly. Someone says something -- and you say that they say
> +AD4-something else. Someone says something and you draw incorrect
> +AD4-conclusions from what they say. Someone says something and you come
> +AD4-up with non sequiturs.
>
> Typical response..... Commenting that your debating 'opponent' has some
> sort of problem.....
It IS typical, you're right. I make the same general sort of response.
Inability or disinclination to discuss what everybody else is discussing
constitutes a problem, IMO. Whether it is due to intellectual deficits
or contrariness, I don't know. Yet 8).
>(totally irrelevant but it might help to silence your opponent)....
>
In what way is it irrelevant? ''Your mother dresses you funny'' might be
irrelevant; ''You are an intellectual cheat'' seems quite to the
point.
> +AD4-I'm quite familiar with rage. It isn't healthy.
>
> Huh????
>
> +AD4-Take a piece of friendly advice: get thee to a counselor, therapist,
> +AD4-minister, and/or self-help group.
>
> Another typical response, debate the points raised by your opponent, not
> what you think of your opponent....
But they seldom are POINTS. Abd if they are they tend to be related to
some totally different topic, or no topic that one can identify. How
can you ''debate'' with content-free random cliches?
>
> +AD4-It's one thing to discuss issues and have opposing viewpoints. It's
> +AD4-something else when someone does this broken-record thing.
>
> Why is it a broken record 'thing'? Because you have nothing relevant to say?
> because you cant provide any real facts that prove Rich wrong?
The great majority of Rich's assertions--or whatever they are--contain
nothing
factual, therefore proving them wrong or right is a non-issue. This
is fairly common in newsgroup interchange. Some people raise it from a
technique to an art 8).
>
> +AD4-You aren't the only person in the world who has been traumatized. Do something
> +AD4-different for yourself. Whatever you are doing now is just
> +AD4-reinforcing and aggravating your hostility.
>
> Irrelevant comments from you and your belief's about his supposed 'mental state' add nothing
> to the debate......
See above. You can't have a debate where only one side addresses the
subjects.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +ACM- Myth: Studies show men are more violent toward their partner than women.
>
> Facts: The Second National Family Survey found that women are more violent than
> men in relationships. Women said they threw objects, slapped, kicked, bit, punched,
> threatened with a knife or gun, and beat their spouse more than the men surveyed.
> Women also said they used a knife or gun against their partner at the same rate of men.
What is the ''National Family Survey?'' I prefer to get my trend
information
from arrest and conviction and disposition data, not anecdotes coaxed
out of a loaded audience.
> --
> mlvburke+AEA-deleteme.co.nz
Mark Evans
Rod Van Mechelen (rod...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: Laurie makes a very good point. The fact rapists are more likely to have
: grown up in a single-parent household without a family man present than
: in a two parent or extended family household is irrelevant. So stop trying
: to confuse the issue with facts!
:
: Geez, you'd think some people actually wanted to find a way to prevent
: rape. They just don't get it. Demonizing men is far more important.
It's not beyond the bonds of posibility that to these
people are actually against seeking solutions.
Eric Conrad
In article <69h637$o...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Paul <THEL...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Then HE does not know the difference between social institutions and
>physical ones. Paul Laird
I'm not sure I am using the terms the way you do, Paul. I think you
may be thinking of "social institutions" as abstractions like law,
custom, and tradition.
You are right to the extent that I am using the terms "social
institution", "physical institution", and "institution" pretty
much interchangeably.
Let's see... "Created by male and female consensus". "Prevent
[rape's] reporting and prosecution". Those are attributes that
apply to the "social institutions" that Chris Owens "blames".
Rape is already against both law and custom, so Chris clearly
isn't blaming abstractions.
Eric
>Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in article
><34BB85...@redsuspenders.com>...
>> Paul wrote:
>> >
>> > Christine A. Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote in article
>> > <34BAA...@redsuspenders.com>...
>> > > Eric Conrad wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >BTW, *I*, a feminist, hold the people, men or women, who commit
>rape
>> > > > >responsible for rape. I further hold social institutions, created
>by
>> > > > >male and female consensus, which facilitate rape, and prevent its
>> > > > >reporting and prosecution, as responsible for rape.
>> > > >
>> > > > Can I assume that you also find that social institutions (like Rape
>> > > > Crisis Centers) which facilitate false reporting of rape are
>> > > > responsible for false rape allegations, as are those who make them.
>> > >
>> > > I wasn't aware that rape crisis centers facilitate the false
>reporting of
>> >
>> > > rape. How did you reach this conclusion?
>> >
>> > Uhm, how did you come to understand him to say that? He didn't.
>>
>> Well, yes, he did. Check the original post, where he SPECIFICALLY
>> cites rape crisis centers; hence, my question.
>>
>> Chris Owens
>>
Rich
Laurie S. wrote:
>
> Rich <pay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Daniel B. Holzman wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <34B936A1...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Does it? Does the fact that Dorothy just recently posted that she does not
> >> >believe a word of it skew the results?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hm. I'm having trouble finding this in dejanews and I'd like to respond
> >> to Dorothy on it. Do you happen to have a thread title or message ID I
> >> could use to narrow my search?
> >
> >Nope, and my archives are about 3000 miles away. Laurie responded, and I
> >think Avedon did as well, if you need verification.
> >
> >Rich
>
> Well, the confusing part may be that "recently" might be open to
> interpretation. I think it was maybe a couple of months ago, and as
> far as a thread title, I think it was one of those long threads that
> takes on a bunch of different focuses before it dies.
>
> In essense, I think Dorothy said that she thought J was a figment of
> Rich's imagination, that he was making it all up. I *might* have a
> copy of it somewhere if I happened to d/l it at my former house (I
> used to go there now and then to update headers because I will be
> getting that HD one of these days).
You know, I recall posting that Dorothy was a member of the x-no-archive
crowd at about that time, so I doubt that dejanews will have them. They
are at home on my hard disk somewhere, or on a CD. I did a dejanews
search, recalling the exact words Dorothy used, and came up with nothing,
so I rather doubt that anyone else will have more success.
> Laurie
Rich
Emma
Max Burke wrote:
> +AD4-Emma wrote in message
<snip>
> +AD4-Joking aside, this must be why you miss what other people are on about then.
>
> Oh, I know what other people are 'on about', just reading the the response's he gets
> indicates that either he posts rubbish, or he manages to hit a lot of feminist sore points
> with his posts.
I'd wager on the first possibility.
> The majority of people in these NG very quickly stop responding to those who post rubbish,
> so it must be that as far as Rich is concerned, his post's ALWAYS hit a sore point, because
> they draw a rapid and vitriolic response from a number of pro-feminist women in theses NG...
Hmmm...so are you saying that Rottweiler and John Baldwen hit sore points? Or would you say that they are just target practice? Rich has slowly but surley
(IMO) joined the ranks of these saddos. Shame, but there you go. I used to see him as worth arguing with, but not any more, because he doesnt listen to
what's being said. Just entertain myself when replying to Rich's posts (on the whole) these days. I imagine that others do the same. Lets face it, when
someone is talking rubbish incessantly, it does make you feel better to have a bit of a go and let some steam off. Provided it is harmless enough (e.g. in
here)
> +AD4APg- Feeling a bit defensive are we???
> +AD4APg- It is a typical trait of the majority of pro feminist women here to post
> +AD4APg- personal comment's about their opponents....(Yourself included...).
>
> +AD4-The +ACI-majority+ACI- is a short step from +ACI-all+ACI- feminists. No wonder you cant see the problems with Rich's
> +AD4-'arguments'. You are duplicating them yourself.
>
> Why are you so 'defensive' about the majority/all argument....
I'm not defensive about it. You started off this conversation when someone (Val?) commented on Rich using the words all women, all feminists...(and other
shite which he posts almost everytime he hits the send button)...then procede to do the same thing. Thats the point I am making.
> I am not going to 'play' that game with you, in fact, to spell it out for you, Not all pro feminist
> women in these NG post personal comments about their debating opponents...
Thank you.
<snip>
> It gets tedious and it is less than productive. Admittedly, there are people who
> +AD4-slow down debate on both sides (myself included sometimes) but to uphold Rich as a shining example of how
> +AD4-to debate is to be completely misinformed about the whole thing.
>
> In short, he brings up points and facts, you have GREAT difficulty in refuting, so resort to the personal
> attack gambit.....(such as your 'nobody loves me' comment)
Oh come on Max...youre being daft now. Rich doesnt argue the points, he replies to a post about whether women eat beans on toast more than men by stating how
feminist misandrists support castration of all male hamsters to ensure women only households. Thats how stupid it gets (OK...so I lied a bit about the
conversation, but its not far off)
> +AD4APg- (why he keeps trying is another matter, IMHO he is extremely patient...)
>
> +AD4-IMHO He should be a patient.
>
> He is +AFs-patient+AF0-, in this case he's a shinning example to us all, eventually you may get the points he's
> trying to make (We can only live in hope, cant we) 8-))
No accounting for taste then really. Seriously though, if Rich is your idea of a role model, you have a low self esteem and should go on some assertiveness
courses.
<snip>
> +AD4-No...you have neither proven that Rich is good at discussing issues or is correct in his assertions about
> +AD4-all/the majority of feminists, nor have you answered my question about what YOUR comments brought to this
> +AD4-discussion (after you told Val she brought nothing to it). Bearing in mind that your argument has twisted
> +AD4-and turned like a twisty turny thing, what point have I proven for you(I cant see that you have one)?
>
> Your obvious lack of comprehension astounds me (yet again), The point I have been making is that all
> Val did was make personal comments about Rich.
Your opening line was:"Has Rich EVER said 'All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers?'"
As he has, this was hardly a personal attack. It was asking him to justify his incessant use of over-generalisation. You then sprung to his defence and did
the same thing talking about how typical something was [of feminists].
> I had no intention whatsoever of trying to prove/disprove if Rich was/is good at discussing issues....
> (Yet again it has to be spelled out to you what the discussion is about).
Revise that one, Max.
> +AD4APg- IMO Rich is an 'expert' at touching the 'raw nerve' of most of the pro feminist women in
> +AD4APg- these news groups, going by the rabid howls of 'rage' he gets out of most of you... 8-))))
>
> +AD4-Howls of rage???? Poor deluded child...You too, need some help. Do you have any opinions of your own Max?
> +AD4-Or am I right in assuming you pick up on little bits of other people's arguments, throw in your two pence
> +AD4-worth, get confused because to go further would mean expressing an opinion of your own, and then bottle
> +AD4-it and run? Seems that way to me.
>
> Hey, you proved my argument in your first post, there is no need to repeat yourself.....
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +ACM- There are three kinds of women, the beautiful, the intelligent, and the
> majority....
And this, my dear boy, proves mine.
Rich
Emma wrote:
>
> Max Burke wrote:
<>
> Oh come on Max...youre being daft now. Rich doesnt argue the points,
You do not argue the points Emma. You make pronouncements by fiat and
then diss anyone who disagrees with you. And I have posted far far more
evidence over the years than you have. But feminists automatically reject
any evidence not fitting their stereoptypes. This is well illustrated by
the feminist war on Prop 209 (the state shall *not* discriminate). They
insist that that fighting for discrimination by the state (in their favor,
nach) is a fight for equaliy. It is just feminist bigots fighting for
sexism that women benefit form.
But you do not argue points and evidence, you attack people. The post I
responded to was clear evidence of your style.
Rich
Robert Huff
Val wrote:
> It isn't their job to find out if the victim is lying or not.
That hasn't stopped the courts from making shelters the first or
second line of fact-finding ... and many shelters co-operation
willing assuming a quasi-legal advocacy role.
Robert Huff
Max Burke
>Emma wrote in message <34BDEEA7...@deletethis.globalnet.co.uk>...
>>Max Burke wrote in code again:
I can offer you two options :
The basic course, ten lessons over ten weeks, and a set of steak knives....
The advanced course, twenty lessons over ten weeks, and not one, but two sets
of steak knives....
>Emma wrote in message <34BDCF24...@deletethis.globalnet.co.uk>...
>> >Frequently..especially the second. Do you read his posts, Max?
>> Not all of them, no....
>Joking aside, this must be why you miss what other people are on about then.
Oh, I know what other people are 'on about', just reading the response's he gets indicates that
either he posts rubbish, or he manages to hit a lot of feminist sore points in his posts.
The majority of people in these NG very quickly stop responding to those who post rubbish,
so it must be that as far as Rich is concerned, his post's ALWAYS hit a sore point, because
they draw such a rapid and vitriolic response from a number of pro-feminist women in the NG's...
>> Feeling a bit defensive are we???
>> It is a typical trait of the majority of pro feminist women here to post
>> personal comment's about their opponents....(Yourself included...).
>The "majority" is a short step from "all" feminists. No wonder you cant see the problems with Rich's
>'arguments'. You are duplicating them yourself.
Why are you so 'defensive' about the majority/all argument....
To spell it out for you, Not all pro feminist women in these NG post personal comments about
their debating opponents...
>> >Because he uses the same lines over and over whatever the argument is about. That is a broken
>> >record thing.
>>
>> Maybe he has to keep repeating himself so that the point he is trying to make
>> gets through
>Arguing with Rich is like banging your head against the wall. You can be guaranteed that whatever the
>topic, he will mention "VAWA", "AA", "ERA", "Jan Shearer", "All feminists", or "nobody loves me" (or
>words to that effect). It gets tedious and it is less than productive. Admittedly, there are people who
>slow down debate on both sides (myself included sometimes) but to uphold Rich as a shining example of how
>to debate is to be completely misinformed about the whole thing.
In short, he brings up points and facts that you have GREAT difficulty in refuting, so you resort to the personal
attack gambit.....(such as your 'nobody loves me' comment)
>> (why he keeps trying is another matter, IMHO he is extremely patient...)
>IMHO He should be a patient.
He is [patient], in this case he's a shinning example to us all, eventually you may get the points he's
trying to make (We can only live in hope, cant we) 8-))
>So what exactly have you added with this post, Max? (about the same as me, I know...but then Im
>not going around with the self-righteous attitude you are).
>> Yeah right..... (talk about self righteous!!!)
>> Emma proves my argument... (what justifies this 'self righteous attitude' comment of yours)....
>No...you have neither proven that Rich is good at discussing issues or is correct in his assertions about
>all/the majority of feminists, nor have you answered my question about what YOUR comments brought to this
>discussion (after you told Val she brought nothing to it). Bearing in mind that your argument has twisted
>and turned like a twisty turny thing, what point have I proven for you(I cant see that you have one)?
Your obvious lack of comprehension astounds me (yet again), the point I have been making is that all
Val did was make personal comments about Rich.
I had no intention whatsoever of trying to prove/disprove if Rich was/is good at discussing issues....
(Yet again it has to be spelled out to you what the discussion is about).
>> IMO Rich is an 'expert' at touching the 'raw nerve' of most of the pro feminist women in
>> these news groups, going by the rabid howls of 'rage' he gets out of most of you... 8-))))
>Howls of rage???? Poor deluded child...You too, need some help. Do you have any opinions of your own Max?
>Or am I right in assuming you pick up on little bits of other people's arguments, throw in your two pence
>worth, get confused because to go further would mean expressing an opinion of your own, and then bottle
>it and run? Seems that way to me.
Hey, you proved my argument in your first post, there is no need to repeat yourself.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# There are three kinds of women, the beautiful, the intelligent, and the
majority....
--
mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz
Max Burke
>Emma wrote in message <34BDEEA7...@deletethis.globalnet.co.uk>...
>>Max Burke wrote in code again:
I can offer you two options :
The basic course, ten lessons over ten weeks, an a set of steak knives....
The advanced course, twenty lessons over ten weeks, and not one but two sets
of steak knives....
>Emma wrote in message <34BDCF24...@deletethis.globalnet.co.uk>...
>> >Frequently..especially the second. Do you read his posts, Max?
>> Not all of them, no....
>Joking aside, this must be why you miss what other people are on about then.
Oh, I know what other people are 'on about', just reading the the response's he gets
indicates that either he posts rubbish, or he manages to hit a lot of feminist sore points
with his posts.
The majority of people in these NG very quickly stop responding to those who post rubbish,
so it must be that as far as Rich is concerned, his post's ALWAYS hit a sore point, because
they draw a rapid and vitriolic response from a number of pro-feminist women in theses NG...
>> Feeling a bit defensive are we???
>> It is a typical trait of the majority of pro feminist women here to post
>> personal comment's about their opponents....(Yourself included...).
>The "majority" is a short step from "all" feminists. No wonder you cant see the problems with Rich's
>'arguments'. You are duplicating them yourself.
Why are you so 'defensive' about the majority/all argument....
I am not going to 'play' that game with you, in fact, to spell it out for you, Not all pro feminist
women in these NG post personal comments about their debating opponents...
>> >Because he uses the same lines over and over whatever the argument is about. That is a broken
>> >record thing.
>>
>> Maybe he has to keep repeating himself so that the point he is trying to make
>> gets through
>Arguing with Rich is like banging your head against the wall. You can be guaranteed that whatever the
>topic, he will mention "VAWA", "AA", "ERA", "Jan Shearer", "All feminists", or "nobody loves me" (or
>words to that effect). It gets tedious and it is less than productive. Admittedly, there are people who
>slow down debate on both sides (myself included sometimes) but to uphold Rich as a shining example of how
>to debate is to be completely misinformed about the whole thing.
In short, he brings up points and facts, you have GREAT difficulty in refuting, so resort to the personal
attack gambit.....(such as your 'nobody loves me' comment)
>> (why he keeps trying is another matter, IMHO he is extremely patient...)
>IMHO He should be a patient.
He is [patient], in this case he's a shinning example to us all, eventually you may get the points he's
trying to make (We can only live in hope, cant we) 8-))
>So what exactly have you added with this post, Max? (about the same as me, I know...but then Im
>not going around with the self-righteous attitude you are).
>> Yeah right..... (talk about self righteous!!!)
>> Emma proves my argument... (what justifies this 'self righteous attitude' comment of yours)....
>No...you have neither proven that Rich is good at discussing issues or is correct in his assertions about
>all/the majority of feminists, nor have you answered my question about what YOUR comments brought to this
>discussion (after you told Val she brought nothing to it). Bearing in mind that your argument has twisted
>and turned like a twisty turny thing, what point have I proven for you(I cant see that you have one)?
Your obvious lack of comprehension astounds me (yet again), The point I have been making is that all
Max Burke
>Val wrote in message <34BE30...@nospam.colorado.edu>...
>>Max Burke wrote:
>> Has Rich EVER said 'All women? All Feminists? All rape crisis centers?'
>Sure he does. It's his shtick.
>Your anger and hostility sometimes interfer with your ability to think
>clearly. Someone says something -- and you say that they say
>something else. Someone says something and you draw incorrect
>conclusions from what they say. Someone says something and you come
>up with non sequiturs.
>> Typical response..... Commenting that your debating 'opponent' has some
>> sort of problem..... (totally irrelevant but it might help to silence your opponent)....
> Not everyone who disagrees with me has a problem. Careful
>examination of Rich's posts reveals that he has a problem. He
>overgeneralizes and doesn't change his mind about anything no matter
>what new information is presented. His posts are sometimes
>irrational.
Ok, so what justify's the personal attacks then?.... What personal knowledge
do you have about Rich that tells you he has a 'problem'?.
As to the things you say he does 'wrong', Dont you EVER overgeneralise in your post's
(clue : read your comment above, and tell me that it is not overgeneralising about Rich and his post's).
Do you always change your mind when new evidence is presented? If so, why haven't you changed
your mind on the points Rich has raised, with the evidence he has presented?
I trust the opinion the Rich is sometimes irrational is all IYHO (in your humble opinion)?
>> Another typical response, debate the points raised by your opponent, not
>> what you think of your opponent....
>When one of the parties plays a broken record, it is no longer a
>debate. It becomes 2 separate monologues.
If it's a 'broken record' that's being played, it's the pro-feminist women who resort to
personal comments on their opponents, because they cannot refute the 'evidence'
or opinion's being presented by their opponents.....
>It's one thing to discuss issues and have opposing viewpoints. It's
>something else when someone does this broken-record thing.
>> Why is it a broken record 'thing'? Because you have nothing relevant to say?
>> because you cant provide any real facts that prove Rich wrong?
>There have been NUMEROUS posts that demonstrated that Rich was
>incorrect or only partially correct.
Yet again, why does this justify personal comments about Rich, if he has
posted incorrect information, prove that, if you dont agree with his opinion say so,
there is no reason whatsoever to 'get personal'. IMHO
>You aren't the only person in the world who has been traumatized. Do something
>different for yourself. Whatever you are doing now is just
>reinforcing and aggravating your hostility.
>> Irrelevant comments from you and your belief's about his supposed 'mental state' add nothing
>> to the debate......
>Like I said before, there is no debate.
So why are you debating with him then, or is it all you can do is make 'personal comments' about
someone whose opinion you dont agree with? If so it is not Rich who has the problem, but you....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# A complete woman is probably not a very admirable creature.
She is manipulative, uses other people to get her own way, and works within whatever
system she is in.
Anita Brookner (b. 1938), British novelist, art historian.
Interview in Writers at Work (Eighth Series, ed. by George Plimpton, 1988).
Emma
Rich wrote:
> Emma wrote:
> >
> > Max Burke wrote:
>
> <>
>
> > Oh come on Max...youre being daft now. Rich doesnt argue the points,
>
> You do not argue the points Emma. You make pronouncements by fiat and
> then diss anyone who disagrees with you.
Wrong. I have had civil discussions with people who respond in kind. When people
go silly, its hardly worth trying to talk sense into them.
> And I have posted far far more
> evidence over the years than you have.
Because I havent been here for years (nor do I intend to).
> But feminists automatically reject
> any evidence not fitting their stereoptypes. This is well illustrated by
> the feminist war on Prop 209 (the state shall *not* discriminate). They
> insist that that fighting for discrimination by the state (in their favor,
> nach) is a fight for equaliy. It is just feminist bigots fighting for
> sexism that women benefit form.
Thanx, Rich. I was struggling to illustrate to Max how you drag in your
favourite arguments into *everything*. Helped me out here and I appreciate it
;o)
> But you do not argue points and evidence, you attack people.
Words..not people
> The post I
> responded to was clear evidence of your style.
It wasnt even my style, dear Rich. I didnt write it. But then you dont care
about that...as long as you get an opportunity to harp on bout one of your
favourite tunes.
>
>
> Rich
Max Burke
>Emma wrote in message <34BEAC22...@deletethis.globalnet.co.uk>...
>>Rich wrote:
> Emma wrote:
> Oh come on Max...youre being daft now. Rich doesnt argue the points,
>> You do not argue the points Emma. You make pronouncements by fiat and
>> then diss anyone who disagrees with you.
>Wrong. I have had civil discussions with people who respond in kind. When people
>go silly, its hardly worth trying to talk sense into them.
Rich is right IMO, when Rich states his opinion, what is your response to him?
> When people go silly, its hardly worth trying to talk sense into them.<
Which illustrates perfectly the point I have been making all along about the personal
comments made by SOME feminists.....
Just because you dont agree with someone's point(s) of view, opinion, or interpretation
of factual evidence, does not justify personal comments about the person....
snip......
>> But feminists automatically reject
>> any evidence not fitting their stereotypes. This is well illustrated by
>> the feminist war on Prop 209 (the state shall *not* discriminate). They
>> insist that that fighting for discrimination by the state (in their favor,
>> nach) is a fight for equaliy. It is just feminist bigots fighting for
>> sexism that women benefit form.
>
>Thanx, Rich. I was struggling to illustrate to Max how you drag in your
>favourite arguments into *everything*. Helped me out here and I appreciate it
>;o)
All this illustrates, Emma, is that you, yet again cannot refute his arguments,
or even offer your dissenting opinion, but resort to type and make another personal
comment....
>> But you do not argue points and evidence, you attack people.
>Words..not people
Do you even read what you type... Every response so far has been a personal comment
about Rich, you have not offered one dissenting opinion or verifiable fact that disproves
the issues Rich has raised....
>> The post I
>> responded to was clear evidence of your style.
>It wasnt even my style, dear Rich. I didnt write it. But then you dont care
>about that...as long as you get an opportunity to harp on bout one of your
>favourite tunes.
I dont thing Rich was implying you wrote the post, in fact my reading of his comment
clearly indicates he was saying [to quote] : 'The post I responded to was clear evidence OF your style.'
and IMHO he is right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Opinions are formed in a process of open discussion and public debate,
and where no opportunity for the forming of opinions exists, there may be
moods—moods of the masses and moods of individuals, the latter no less fickle
and unreliable than the former—but no opinion.
Hannah Arendt (1906–75), German-born U.S. political philosopher.
On Revolution, ch. 6 (1963).
--
mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz
Daniel B. Holzman
In article <34BE972B...@earthlink.net>, Rich <Anonymous, Reply> wrote:
>
>You know, I recall posting that Dorothy was a member of the x-no-archive
>crowd at about that time, so I doubt that dejanews will have them. They
It's got a flock of her other stuff.
Steen Goddik
On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Max Burke wrote:
> Do you always change your mind when new evidence is presented? If so,
why haven't you changed> your mind on the points Rich has raised, with
the evidence he has presented?
>
> I trust the opinion the Rich is sometimes irrational is all IYHO (in
your humble opinion)?
I have to jump in here, as I have had repeaded frustrated "debates" with
Rich as well. Rich will define me as the typical feminist (without much
elaboration, except the one about feminists being only about subjugating
men), and then make some kind of outrageous claim, while pointing out that
this is typical for the mentality of all feminists, and that we are all
the same (eg a monolithic block). When I point out, that I certainly
disagree with him, and that I don';t know any feminist who disagree with
me on that issue, he will point out that some other feminist (his
favorites are Dworkin and McKinnon) actually support this and that
therefore ALL feminists support this.
That kind of posts are not debating. It is wishful thinking, and leaves
us with only two conclusions. Either he does not believe that we think
differently about a subject than what he posted, or that never mind what
we say, other feminists (the typical ones are not like that. While he
make these claims, he will reiterate that we are all typical feminists.
DO you see the circular logic? This is NOT a debate.
Additionally, when we address his favorite topics (eg 409, AA etc.),
despite that this leave the current topic behind, he simply ignore it.
Then a couple of posts later, he will make exactly the same claims, and
make the claim, that NO feminists oppose it.
Do you see the frustration we have with Rich? He does not debate. Rich
wants to bring out a statement, and then get as much mileage out of it as
he can in getting feminists to look bad, while having NO interest
WHATSOEVER in actually debating the issue or the correctness of his
claims.
The conclusion I have come to, is that Rich only want to make his claim as
much as he can, irrespective of reality. I also see his tactics as being
about making a claim often enough, that it will become the Truth, never
mind the reality of the claim (eg. if a lie is repeated often enough, it
will become the truth).
This is unacceptable to me, and therefore I have begun to point his
falacies out everytime he posts. I love to explore issues, and work on
modifying my opinions, where they seem to be in error. This is not
possible with Rich, however, and with him, I only see the ability of not
letting his lies become The Truth. I have come to the realization, that
there is no debate with Rich, rather there are clkaims and counter claims,
and that is all I can ever hope for. Hence, I will continue to post my
refutions of Rich's claims everytime he make them. This is sad, but it is
also reality.
> If it's a 'broken record' that's being played, it's the pro-feminist
women who resort to> personal comments on their opponents, because they
cannot refute the 'evidence'> or opinion's being presented by their
opponents.....
Sorry, but Rich certainly IS a broken record. Debate and exploration of
the issues are great, but when there are no debate and only accusations,
then evidence become pointless. Rich is so dominating in this department,
that the broken-record syndrome, to me, has begun to satnd for
anti-feminists. I know this is unfair, and I try to correct myself, but
this is hard when I see the barrage of unfounded/false claims coming off
Rich's keyboard.
> +AD4-There have been NUMEROUS posts that demonstrated that Rich was
> +AD4-incorrect or only partially correct.
>
> Yet again, why does this justify personal comments about Rich, if he has
> posted incorrect information, prove that, if you dont agree with his
opinion say so,> there is no reason whatsoever to 'get personal'. IMHO
You are right about the "personal" part. You miss the point, though, that
even when providing evidence, Rich ignores this and just goes on to making
the same claim, or some other claim, irrespective of what we point out
(f.ex., he keeps on making claims about "all" feminists, and saying that
all feminists are radical (no main-stream) and believe what he claims,
never mind how much we post disagreement with the claims. Rich does not
believe in evidence. He only belive in pushing his pre-determined points
of views as the Truth
I don't see how you can claim the possibility of debate with any of his
postings.
Sincerely,
Steen Goddik sgo...@sunflowr.edu.com
"Naar moderen fryser, faar barnet en ekstra sweater paa"
"When the parent is freezing, the child gets an extra sweater on"
Mark S. Bilk
In article <69fvna$d68$1...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>, Eric Conrad <eco...@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <69eg2r$5h6$1...@gail.ripco.com>, Kerry Keane <lud...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>>: Taking the three premises together,
Those premises being that 1) rape crisis centers [RCCs] encourage
rape victims to report the crime, 2) some people make false accus-
ations of rape, and 3) some of those false accusers go to RCCs.
>>: one obtains the conclusion that "Rape crisis centers
>>: occasionally (possibly inadvertently) encourage false reporting
>>: of rape."
>>Well, I don't recall the "occasionally" and "inadvertently"
>>the first time around--have you amended it, perhaps?
>Neither "occasionally" nor "inadvertently" matter. The
>conclusion follows from the given premises.
Conrad (a math student) is confusing natural language statements
with those of mathematical logic. Natural language statements
are made in a context that is shared between the speaker and
listener, and much of their meaning comes from that context.
Regarding the statement asserted by Conrad, "Rape crisis centers
encourage false reporting of rape", there is a convention in
English that statements of actions taken by people refer to inten-
tional, purposeful, knowing actions, unless otherwise specified.
Therefore, since RCCs do not intentionally and knowingly encourage
false reporting, Conrad's statement is *untrue*.
To illustrate this point, I will use Conrad's bogus method to
"prove" the following statement:
"Eric Conrad encourages people to stomp on babies."
P1: Conrad encourages jogging for good health.
P2: Some joggers might accidentally stomp on a baby while running.
P3: Some accidental baby-stomping joggers (P2) have heard Conrad's
encouragement (P1).
>You are therefore
>aware of the case in which a therapist encoraged a client to
>file a false rape report. He accompanied her to the police station.
>The woman later retracted the complaint, admitting that she
>made up the story to impress the therapist.
Evidently the therapist *did not know* that the accusation of rape
had been fabricated. Therefore, by English language convention,
Conrad's statement that "a therapist encoraged a client to file a
false rape report" is *untrue*. The therapist did not *intention-
ally* do any such thing.
Why did Conrad promote his absurd claim about rape crisis centers?
He has posted hundreds of antifeminist articles. In one he wrote:
=For example, NOW promotes the "right" of women to make false accusations
=of abuse against men in order to secure more favorable child custody and
=support decisions. (See the NOW statement on fathers' rights organizations
=on the NOW web pages at http://www.now.org for details.)
I would love to see a quote from NOW to support Conrad's claim.
In another post, he objected to the Supreme Court decision that
upheld this action:
= A Baptist minister, Lumpkin was removed from his post
= on San Francisco's Human Rights Commission after advocating
= violence against gays and lesbians by repeatedly stating that
= homosexuality was an "abomination" and quoting
= Biblical passages that prescribe death for gays and lesbians.
In other words, Conrad feels that a person who believes that
all homosexuals should be murdered ought to be making decisions
on human rights in a city with a large gay/lesbian population.
>And I was not making a moral judgment. I was questioning
>Chris Owens' statement that she blames certain institutions
>for rape.
Some social institutions advocate that women should be subservient
to men; these include Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Fundamental-
ism, Fascism (e.g., Nazis and Ku Klux Klan), and the somewhat less
well-defined, but widely prevalent, Social Conservatism subscribed
to by, e.g., most supporters of the Republican Party and by the
antifeminist posters to alt.feminism. These institutions do create
conditions in men's minds which lead some of them to rape:
When men are taught that women should be subservient to them, and
then they encounter all the independent women in the world, some
of these men come to feel that certain women who have stood up to
them, or even *all* women, deserve to be punished, for violating
what the men have been taught is "God's will", or the "natural
order of things". For some of these men, rape is both a way of
punishing women, and of obtaining sexual gratification while
avoiding any emotional intimacy with the "inferior" females.
While the teaching of male supremacy and of the religious murder
of homosexual people may be protected by the First Amendment
(or may not be--not all incitements to murder are), it is vital
that the role of the aforementioned Conservative social institu-
tions in the causation of violence and murder be widely publicized.
--
_The Chalice and the Blade_, by Riane Eisler, 1988, ISBN
0-06-250-289-1, HarperSanFrancisco, $16. An overview of the
archaeological work of Marija Gimbutas and others. It explains
the macro-history of human culture, and proves that domination,
patriarchy, and war are culturally programmed, rather than
biologically innate.
_Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World
War II_, by William Blum, ISBN 1-56751-052-3, $19.95, 458 pp.,
Common Courage Press (Monroe, Maine), ph. 207-525-0900. Dozens
of concise chapters, each on the destruction of democracy in a
particular nation by the U.S., through military and covert means.
A superb and very readable source, with copious references.
Nick Danger
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 22:08:18 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
-snip-
:>.... most supporters of the Republican Party and by the
:>antifeminist posters to alt.feminism. These institutions do create
:>conditions in men's minds which lead some of them to rape:
For this you go into the killfile. Intolerance is one thing,
intolerance mixed with ignorance is not worth listening to.
--------------------------------------------
This article is made of 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------
Max Burke
>Steen Goddik wrote in message ...
Well I could say the same about the posts you make about this 'mythical'
patriachy, and the 'overwhelming' influence you think it has on society....
Several of us have repeatedly asked you to back up you claims about the
'patriachy' and the things you claim it is responsible for, I have yet to see any of
your evidence. I get the distinct impression you just ignore these requests,
just same as you claim Rich does when you 'call' on him to provide his evidence...
>Do you see the frustration we have with Rich? He does not debate. Rich
>wants to bring out a statement, and then get as much mileage out of it as
>he can in getting feminists to look bad, while having NO interest
>WHATSOEVER in actually debating the issue or the correctness of his
>claims.
>The conclusion I have come to, is that Rich only want to make his claim as
>much as he can, irrespective of reality. I also see his tactics as being
>about making a claim often enough, that it will become the Truth, never
>mind the reality of the claim (eg. if a lie is repeated often enough, it
>will become the truth).
The above 'comment' is not what you think will really happen, do you?
Do you honestly believe that usenet discussions will ever become the 'truth'?
(whatever you mean by that)
Then again, I could say that Rich is just putting into practice (in reverse), a common
feminist tactic (Say something often enough, even if not exactly correct, it will be
accepted as fact), such as the male/female ratio's of domestic violence, the supposed
discrimination women suffer in employment, the myth of the patriarchal society (your favourite),
and various other feminist dogma that is not exactly true, but is accepted as 'fact'.
>This is unacceptable to me, and therefore I have begun to point his
>falacies out everytime he posts. I love to explore issues, and work on
>modifying my opinions, where they seem to be in error. This is not
>possible with Rich, however, and with him, I only see the ability of not
>letting his lies become The Truth. I have come to the realization, that
>there is no debate with Rich, rather there are clkaims and counter claims,
>and that is all I can ever hope for. Hence, I will continue to post my
>refutions of Rich's claims everytime he make them. This is sad, but it is
>also reality.
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone refuting another persons claims, and that
is not the point I have raised, the discussion is about opponents of Rich making
personal comments about him, or his mental state. Val and Emma made no attempt
at all to refute anything he said....
You put to much faith in the usenet for my liking, IMHO these NG's are just
discussion groups, that have very little if any effect at all on the participants, and no
effect whatsoever on society as a whole...
>> If it's a 'broken record' that's being played, it's the pro-feminist
>women who resort to> personal comments on their opponents, because they
>cannot refute the 'evidence'> or opinion's being presented by their
>opponents.....
>Sorry, but Rich certainly IS a broken record. Debate and exploration of
>the issues are great, but when there are no debate and only accusations,
>then evidence become pointless.
Well the accusations are coming predominantly from your side of the
'fence'....
>Rich is so dominating in this department,
>that the broken-record syndrome, to me, has begun to satnd for
>anti-feminists. I know this is unfair, and I try to correct myself, but
>this is hard when I see the barrage of unfounded/false claims coming off
>Rich's keyboard.
Do you honestly think personal comments, are going to stop Rich posting
his opinion?
>> There have been NUMEROUS posts that demonstrated that Rich was
>> incorrect or only partially correct.
>> Yet again, why does this justify personal comments about Rich, if he has
>> posted incorrect information, prove that, if you dont agree with his
>> opinion say so,> there is no reason whatsoever to 'get personal'. IMHO
>You are right about the "personal" part. You miss the point, though, that
>even when providing evidence, Rich ignores this and just goes on to making
>the same claim, or some other claim, irrespective of what we point out
>(f.ex., he keeps on making claims about "all" feminists, and saying that
>all feminists are radical (no main-stream) and believe what he claims,
>never mind how much we post disagreement with the claims. Rich does not
>believe in evidence. He only belive in pushing his pre-determined points
>of views as the Truth
I have not made any comment at all about the contents of Rich's post's,
the point (and only point) I have raised, is that the predominant response to him is
a personal comment....
>I don't see how you can claim the possibility of debate with any of his
>postings.
I dont see how you, Emma, and Val can claim you are trying to debate with
him either, when all he gets in response is this 'broken record' comment, or he
needs to see a therapist...
Why am I making such an 'issue' of this point? Because it is a favourite tactic
of the majority of the pro-feminist's here, especially when they have an 'ethical'
problem responding to some of the unpalatable facts about feminist dogma.
Emma
Lesson #1: How to edit something and take it completely out of context, then
spit your dummy out because of it.
Nick Danger wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 22:08:18 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> :>.... most supporters of the Republican Party and by the
> :>antifeminist posters to alt.feminism. These institutions do create
> :>conditions in men's minds which lead some of them to rape:
>
Emma
Max Burke wrote:
> >Steen Goddik wrote in message ...
> >On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Max Burke wrote:
<snip>
> I have come to the realization, that
> >there is no debate with Rich, rather there are clkaims and counter claims,
> >and that is all I can ever hope for. Hence, I will continue to post my
> >refutions of Rich's claims everytime he make them. This is sad, but it is
> >also reality.
>
> I have no problem whatsoever with anyone refuting another persons claims, and that
> is not the point I have raised, the discussion is about opponents of Rich making
> personal comments about him, or his mental state. Val and Emma made no attempt
> at all to refute anything he said....
Then you see very little of what goes on here, Max. People have refuted Rich's comments on a regular
basis. The trouble is, he generally takes the context of a post and goes off at such a tangent, that
his comments become irrelevent.
> You put to much faith in the usenet for my liking, IMHO these NG's are just
> discussion groups, that have very little if any effect at all on the participants, and no
> effect whatsoever on society as a whole...
So why are you wasting your time here Max?
> >> If it's a 'broken record' that's being played, it's the pro-feminist
> >women who resort to> personal comments on their opponents, because they
> >cannot refute the 'evidence'> or opinion's being presented by their
> >opponents.....
>
> >Sorry, but Rich certainly IS a broken record. Debate and exploration of
> >the issues are great, but when there are no debate and only accusations,
> >then evidence become pointless.
>
> Well the accusations are coming predominantly from your side of the
> 'fence'....
nener nener nener....you started it.
> >Rich is so dominating in this department,
> >that the broken-record syndrome, to me, has begun to satnd for
> >anti-feminists. I know this is unfair, and I try to correct myself, but
> >this is hard when I see the barrage of unfounded/false claims coming off
> >Rich's keyboard.
>
> Do you honestly think personal comments, are going to stop Rich posting
> his opinion?
>
> >> There have been NUMEROUS posts that demonstrated that Rich was
> >> incorrect or only partially correct.
>
> >> Yet again, why does this justify personal comments about Rich, if he has
> >> posted incorrect information, prove that, if you dont agree with his
> >> opinion say so,> there is no reason whatsoever to 'get personal'. IMHO
>
> >You are right about the "personal" part. You miss the point, though, that
> >even when providing evidence, Rich ignores this and just goes on to making
> >the same claim, or some other claim, irrespective of what we point out
> >(f.ex., he keeps on making claims about "all" feminists, and saying that
> >all feminists are radical (no main-stream) and believe what he claims,
> >never mind how much we post disagreement with the claims. Rich does not
> >believe in evidence. He only belive in pushing his pre-determined points
> >of views as the Truth
>
> I have not made any comment at all about the contents of Rich's post's,
> the point (and only point) I have raised, is that the predominant response to him is
> a personal comment....
Au contraire. You posted how much you agreed with the validity of his posts and how great he was at
debating and how patient he was and how much you want to have his babies....(OK so I made that last
bit up). BTW...pointing out to Rich that he has just ignored the topic in discussion and dragged in
how ALL feminists support 209 (or whatever it is) is not a personal comment, but a valid observation
on his ability to ignore the topic and rant and rave about what HE wants to talk about.
> >I don't see how you can claim the possibility of debate with any of his
> >postings.
>
> I dont see how you, Emma, and Val can claim you are trying to debate with
> him either, when all he gets in response is this 'broken record' comment, or he
> needs to see a therapist...
You got that bit right when you mentioned me. I no longer try and debate with him, because it's not
worth the effort. He has joined my list of "dont even bother.."s
> Why am I making such an 'issue' of this point?
Because you've got nothing better to do?
> Because it is a favourite tactic
> of the majority of the pro-feminist's here, especially when they have an 'ethical'
> problem responding to some of the unpalatable facts about feminist dogma.
Ah....close.
Rich
Emma wrote:
>
> Max Burke wrote:
>
> > >On Fri, 16 Jan 1998, Max Burke wrote:
>
>
> > I have come to the realization, that
> > >there is no debate with Rich, rather there are clkaims and counter claims,
> > >and that is all I can ever hope for. Hence, I will continue to post my
> > >refutions of Rich's claims everytime he make them. This is sad, but it is
> > >also reality.
> >
> > I have no problem whatsoever with anyone refuting another persons claims, and that
> > is not the point I have raised, the discussion is about opponents of Rich making
> > personal comments about him, or his mental state. Val and Emma made no attempt
> > at all to refute anything he said....
>
> omments on a regular basis.
Denial is one thing, refutation another. The folks in talk.rape keep claiming (falsely)
that all women have advocated penalties for false rape accusations, for example, but
they have yet to post the text of a single one and cannot name what penalties these
women were supposed to have advocated. The simple fact is, only a few women in the
past have, after much argumentation, admitted that FRA's deserve some real penalty.
The rest do not think that FRA's should be penalized at all.
And feminists keep claiming that feminism is about people, but have yet to come
up with a single example of a result of feminism which does not just help women.
Feminism is not about men and never was, or equality.
> The trouble is, he generally takes the context of a post and goes off at such a
> tangent, that his comments become irrelevent.
This is, simply put, a lie. I almost always include *all* the text of the post I
respond to. In fact, some posters complain about this. But that does not stop
weak-minded sexists like you from making false editing accusations anyway.
<here is some editing, personal attacks deleted>
> > >Sorry, but Rich certainly IS a broken record.
As opposed to what poster? Who isn't a broken record?
<more editing, personal attacks deleted>
> > >> Yet again, why does this justify personal comments about Rich, if he has
> > >> posted incorrect information, prove that, if you dont agree with his
> > >> opinion say so,> there is no reason whatsoever to 'get personal'. IMHO
> >
> > >You are right about the "personal" part. You miss the point, though, that
> > >even when providing evidence, Rich ignores this and just goes on to making
> > >the same claim, or some other claim, irrespective of what we point out
> > >(f.ex., he keeps on making claims about "all" feminists, and saying that
> > >all feminists are radical (no main-stream) and believe what he claims,
> > >never mind how much we post disagreement with the claims. Rich does not
> > >believe in evidence. He only belive in pushing his pre-determined points
> > >of views as the Truth
Show me one feminist who has changed her dogma in response to evidence, just
one. The fact is everyone here is guilty, and I rather suspect you will find
few newsgroups that are different, or few people in real life who are different.
You are no different Emma.
> > >I don't see how you can claim the possibility of debate with any of his
> > >postings.
> >
> > I dont see how you, Emma, and Val can claim you are trying to debate with
> > him either, when all he gets in response is this 'broken record' comment, or he
> > needs to see a therapist...
>
> You got that bit right when you mentioned me. I no longer try and debate
> with him, because it's not worth the effort. He has joined my list of
> "dont even bother.."s
Emma, you have never even bothered to debate, you just repeat your stereotypes.
Another favorite of yours, as this thread shows, is personal attack.
Rich
Emma
Rich wrote:
> Emma wrote:
<snip>
> > Then you see very little of what goes on here, Max. People have refuted Rich's c
> > omments on a regular basis.
>
> Denial is one thing, refutation another. The folks in talk.rape keep claiming (falsely)
> that all women have advocated penalties for false rape accusations, for example, but
> they have yet to post the text of a single one and cannot name what penalties these
> women were supposed to have advocated. The simple fact is, only a few women in the
> past have, after much argumentation, admitted that FRA's deserve some real penalty.
> The rest do not think that FRA's should be penalized at all.
Well forget about people in another newsgroup, Rich...deal with the people here. Have you
ever seen me (no-one else, just me) say that I think action should be taken against people
making false rape accusations?
> And feminists keep claiming that feminism is about people, but have yet to come
> up with a single example of a result of feminism which does not just help women.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has been used to equalise the entitlement age for men and
women for state pensions.
> Feminism is not about men and never was, or equality.
It is, you just dont want it to be shown as such so you can demonise it easier.
> > The trouble is, he generally takes the context of a post and goes off at such a
> > tangent, that his comments become irrelevent.
>
> This is, simply put, a lie. I almost always include *all* the text of the post I
> respond to.
Yes, then ignore it and say "that is another feminist lie as is the one about...blah blah
blah"
> In fact, some posters complain about this. But that does not stop
> weak-minded sexists like you from making false editing accusations anyway.
>
> <here is some editing, personal attacks deleted>
>
> > > >Sorry, but Rich certainly IS a broken record.
>
> As opposed to what poster? Who isn't a broken record?
Many can respond to the topic in question without harping back to the same sorry lines.
They arent.
<snip>
> Rich does not
> > > >believe in evidence. He only belive in pushing his pre-determined points
> > > >of views as the Truth
>
> Show me one feminist who has changed her dogma in response to evidence, just
> one.
I changed my view that the phrase "all men are potential rapists" was not anti-male. I also
stated so.
> The fact is everyone here is guilty, and I rather suspect you will find
> few newsgroups that are different, or few people in real life who are different.
> You are no different Emma.
*sob* I wanna be different...I do try. (p.s. see above)<snip>
>> You got that bit right when you mentioned me. I no longer try and debate
> > with him, because it's not worth the effort. He has joined my list of
> > "dont even bother.."s
>
> Emma, you have never even bothered to debate, you just repeat your stereotypes.
> Another favorite of yours, as this thread shows, is personal attack.
Yep...OK Rich. Although I just noticed that I broke my list of "dont even bother.."s Damn!
>
>
> Rich
Rich
Emma wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
>
> > Emma wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Then you see very little of what goes on here, Max. People have refuted Rich's c
> > > omments on a regular basis.
> >
> > Denial is one thing, refutation another. The folks in talk.rape keep claiming (falsely)
> > that all women have advocated penalties for false rape accusations, for example, but
> > they have yet to post the text of a single one and cannot name what penalties these
> > women were supposed to have advocated. The simple fact is, only a few women in the
> > past have, after much argumentation, admitted that FRA's deserve some real penalty.
> > The rest do not think that FRA's should be penalized at all.
>
> Well forget about people in another newsgroup, Rich...deal with the people here.
Actually, they are pretty much the same people. Many many women in alt.feminism have
claimed that there is no such thing as a false rape accusation. The usual argument is
that it's so difficult that any woman who does it must've been raped.
> Have you
> ever seen me (no-one else, just me) say that I think action should be taken against
> people making false rape accusations?
I did a search for your postings WRT false rape accusations and you have not said
one way or another, but you do seem to be saying that any woman who claims to have
been raped was.
> > And feminists keep claiming that feminism is about people, but have yet to come
> > up with a single example of a result of feminism which does not just help women.
>
> The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has been used to equalise the entitlement age for men and
> women for state pensions.
Now we get into some UK specific stuff. But you need to provide more info.
BTW, there is serious debate on issues of sexism in the UK, and quite often
male posters from there point out that things are not as they were claimed.
Although we do not have verification, it seems that it has been ruled that
crimes against men do not fall under the umbrella of the VAWA.
> > Feminism is not about men and never was, or equality.
>
> It is, you just dont want it to be shown as such so you can demonise it easier.
I keep posting examples of feminist actions that are not as you claim,
and you just keep ignoring them. Were you an advocate of equality, you
would object to feminist sexism as well, and you do not. You are clearly
a woman's advocate, this seems to be all you do.
> > > The trouble is, he generally takes the context of a post and goes off at such a
> > > tangent, that his comments become irrelevent.
> >
> > This is, simply put, a lie. I almost always include *all* the text of the post I
> > respond to.
>
> Yes, then ignore it and say "that is another feminist lie as is the one about...blah blah
> blah"
See, you do not address the accuracy of your claim in any way.
> > In fact, some posters complain about this. But that does not stop
> > weak-minded sexists like you from making false editing accusations anyway.
> >
> > <here is some editing, personal attacks deleted>
> >
> > > > >Sorry, but Rich certainly IS a broken record.
> >
> > As opposed to what poster? Who isn't a broken record?
>
> Many can respond to the topic in question without harping back to the
> same sorry lines. They arent.
I ask you to be specific and you generalize again. Clearly you cannot
name anyone who does as you say.
> <snip>
>
> > Rich does not
> > > > >believe in evidence. He only belive in pushing his pre-determined points
> > > > >of views as the Truth
> >
> > Show me one feminist who has changed her dogma in response to evidence, just
> > one.
>
> I changed my view that the phrase "all men are potential rapists" was not anti-male.
But yet that still seems to be the basis for your rape responses. You cannot
seem to understand that sometimes women lie about being raped, and I bet that
given a clear case you would defend her lie as well.
> I also stated so.
But you still seem to believe it.
> > The fact is everyone here is guilty, and I rather suspect you will find
> > few newsgroups that are different, or few people in real life who are different.
> > You are no different Emma.
>
> *sob* I wanna be different...I do try. (p.s. see above)<snip>
<chuckle>
> >> You got that bit right when you mentioned me. I no longer try and debate
>
> > > with him, because it's not worth the effort. He has joined my list of
> > > "dont even bother.."s
> >
> > Emma, you have never even bothered to debate, you just repeat your stereotypes.
> > Another favorite of yours, as this thread shows, is personal attack.
>
> Yep...OK Rich. Although I just noticed that I broke my list of "dont even bother.."s Damn!
You'll get over it.
Rich
> > Rich
Emma
Rich wrote:
> Emma wrote:
<snip>
> I did a search for your postings WRT false rape accusations and you have not said
> one way or another, but you do seem to be saying that any woman who claims to have
> been raped was.
Especially for you Rich...****************************************************************
| Subject: Re: Boycott kate: -Re: Web pages on rape
| Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 22:05:00 +0000
| From: Emma <po...@deletethis.globalnet.co.uk>
| Newsgroups: talk.rape, soc.men, soc.women, alt.feminism
| References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
|
|> And I suggest that they give the same support to false DV accusations
|> as they do false rape accusations. They would not penalize a woman
|> for merely maliciously ruing a man's life, which feminists place no
|> value upon anyway.
|
|Well, I think youre going off on your "Nobody loves me" line here. Most
|feminists rate life highly, whether its male or female. To damage someones life
|maliciously by untrue allegations of rape/abuse is unforgivable...and also does
|a disservice to women (and men) who have been truly subjected to it, as the
|disbelieving atmosphere has been formed and is thereby justified. Thus,
|malicious actions gain no favour with the majority (feminists and otherwise)
|IMO.
|
*************************************************************
> > > And feminists keep claiming that feminism is about people, but have yet to come
> > > up with a single example of a result of feminism which does not just help women.
> >
> > The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has been used to equalise the entitlement age for men and
> > women for state pensions.
>
> Now we get into some UK specific stuff. But you need to provide more info.
The retirement age in the UK was decreed to be against the provisions of the SDA and thus, the
age for men and women was equalised...now they are both 65 (for anyone under the age of 40 when
the ruling was passed, anyway).
> BTW, there is serious debate on issues of sexism in the UK
Of course there are...why wouldnt there be?
> , and quite often
> male posters from there point out that things are not as they were claimed.
Well I challenge them to contradict that (about the pensions)
> Although we do not have verification, it seems that it has been ruled that
> crimes against men do not fall under the umbrella of the VAWA.
Which has nothing to do with this conversation, except with the title (Broken records)
> > > Feminism is not about men and never was, or equality.
> >
> > It is, you just dont want it to be shown as such so you can demonise it easier.
>
> I keep posting examples of feminist actions that are not as you claim,
> and you just keep ignoring them.
I dont keep ignoring them at all. The ones that I do answer as you ask (as above) you ignore.
The ones about US legislation, I cant answer because I dont have enough knowledge to be able to
do so. Which actions in particular have you shown otherwise?
> Were you an advocate of equality, you
> would object to feminist sexism as well, and you do not. You are clearly
> a woman's advocate, this seems to be all you do.
There is no point in me denying this. If I do, you either say it is a lie or you ignore it. Thus
I pass comment.
> > > > The trouble is, he generally takes the context of a post and goes off at such a
> > > > tangent, that his comments become irrelevent.
> > >
> > > This is, simply put, a lie. I almost always include *all* the text of the post I
> > > respond to.
> >
> > Yes, then ignore it and say "that is another feminist lie as is the one about...blah blah
> > blah"
>
> See, you do not address the accuracy of your claim in any way.
But I do. You keep all the text in the post, but bring in tangents like "BTW....(something about
the VAWA, 209, whatever)", so you can hardly say that you reply in context. In fact, if you look
at some of your posts, that claim is laughable.
> > > In fact, some posters complain about this. But that does not stop
> > > weak-minded sexists like you from making false editing accusations anyway.
> > >
> > > <here is some editing, personal attacks deleted>
> > >
> > > > > >Sorry, but Rich certainly IS a broken record.
> > >
> > > As opposed to what poster? Who isn't a broken record?
> >
> > Many can respond to the topic in question without harping back to the
> > same sorry lines. They arent.
>
> I ask you to be specific and you generalize again. Clearly you cannot
> name anyone who does as you say.
I really dont wanna get into a discussion along the lines of "I dont like them" "well I do."
which this would have the danger of getting into if I named names. Needless to say Rich...if you
think everyone on here is a broken record, you really are doing a number of intelligent people
(on both sides) an injustice.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Rich does not
> > > > > >believe in evidence. He only belive in pushing his pre-determined points
> > > > > >of views as the Truth
> > >
> > > Show me one feminist who has changed her dogma in response to evidence, just
> > > one.
> >
> > I changed my view that the phrase "all men are potential rapists" was not anti-male.
>
> But yet that still seems to be the basis for your rape responses. You cannot
> seem to understand that sometimes women lie about being raped, and I bet that
> given a clear case you would defend her lie as well.
See above. Then retract this comment.
>
>
> > I also stated so.
>
> But you still seem to believe it.
>
> > > The fact is everyone here is guilty, and I rather suspect you will find
> > > few newsgroups that are different, or few people in real life who are different.
> > > You are no different Emma.
> >
> > *sob* I wanna be different...I do try. (p.s. see above)<snip>
>
> <chuckle>
>
> > >> You got that bit right when you mentioned me. I no longer try and debate
> >
> > > > with him, because it's not worth the effort. He has joined my list of
> > > > "dont even bother.."s
> > >
> > > Emma, you have never even bothered to debate, you just repeat your stereotypes.
> > > Another favorite of yours, as this thread shows, is personal attack.
> >
> > Yep...OK Rich. Although I just noticed that I broke my list of "dont even bother.."s Damn!
>
> You'll get over it.
Yeah, but will you?
>
>
> Rich
>
> > > Rich
Emma
Max Burke wrote:
<snip>
> I do agree with the 'validity' of his post's, (no disagreement there), but I have NOT made any
> comment about the content.....
Max...I cant be bothered to respond to the rest of your post because they are getting worse than petty. This bit pizzles
me though. You DO agree that Rich's posts are valid...but you make no comment about the content. Pray tell, what part of
his post do you see as being valid, then (if it isnt the content)?<snip>
> >Ah....close.
>
> Is that an agreement? (can I dare to hope?)
I think you have more chance of being next in line to the throne...of swaziland.
Max Burke
>Emma wrote in message <34C1D0F1...@deletethis.globalnet.co.uk>...
>>Max Burke wrote:
>> I have no problem whatsoever with anyone refuting another persons claims, and that
>> is not the point I have raised, the discussion is about opponents of Rich making
>> personal comments about him, or his mental state. Val and Emma made no attempt
>> at all to refute anything he said....
>Then you see very little of what goes on here, Max. People have refuted Rich's comments on a regular
>basis. The trouble is, he generally takes the context of a post and goes off at such a tangent, that
>his comments become irrelevent.
I KNOW people have refuted his comments (on a regular basis), to spell it out (it always seems
to get to this at some stage in ANY debate with you), That is NOT the point I am making, read my comment
above for clarification....
>> You put to much faith in the usenet for my liking, IMHO these NG's are just
>> discussion groups, that have very little if any effect at all on the participants, and no
>> effect whatsoever on society as a whole...
>So why are you wasting your time here Max?
Case proved YET again, why the personal comment?
>> Well the accusations are coming predominantly from your side of the
>> 'fence'....
>nener nener nener....you started it.
And again (2 times in this post so far......)
>> Yet again, why does this justify personal comments about Rich, if he has
>> posted incorrect information, prove that, if you dont agree with his
>> opinion say so, there is no reason whatsoever to 'get personal'. IMHO
Read this Emma.....
Stein Goddick wrote...
>> >You are right about the "personal" part.
Stein [apparently] agrees with me....
>> I have not made any comment at all about the contents of Rich's post's,
>> the point (and only point) I have raised, is that the predominant response to him is
>> a personal comment....
>Au contraire. You posted how much you agreed with the validity of his posts and how great he was at
>debating and how patient he was and how much you want to have his babies....(OK so I made that last
>bit up). BTW...pointing out to Rich that he has just ignored the topic in discussion and dragged in
>how ALL feminists support 209 (or whatever it is) is not a personal comment, but a valid observation
>on his ability to ignore the topic and rant and rave about what HE wants to talk about.
I do agree with the 'validity' of his post's, (no disagreement there), but I have NOT made any
comment about the content.....
For your enlightenment....
content (kòn¹tènt´) noun
Content. The subject matter of a written work, such as a book or magazine.
[Middle English, from Medieval Latin contentum, neuter past participle of Latin continêre, to contain. See contain.]
valid (vàl¹îd) adjective
1. Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2. Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
3. Logic.
a. Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived: a valid argument.
b. Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise: a valid conclusion.
[French valide, from Old French, from Latin validus, strong, from valêre, to be strong.]
— validity or validness noun
— va¹lidly adverb
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition.
As to how great his debating 'style' is, he puts you to 'shame' most of the time IMHO.
(and he does it all with resorting to personal comments, what does that tell YOU....)
>> I dont see how you, Emma, and Val can claim you are trying to debate with
>> him either, when all he gets in response is this 'broken record' comment, or he
>> needs to see a therapist...
>You got that bit right when you mentioned me. I no longer try and debate with him, because it's not
>worth the effort. He has joined my list of "dont even bother.."s
>> Why am I making such an 'issue' of this point?
>Because you've got nothing better to do?
3 times (case proved, I'm on a roll here....)
>> Because it is a favourite tactic
>> of the majority of the pro-feminist's here, especially when they have an 'ethical'
>> problem responding to some of the unpalatable facts about feminist dogma.
>Ah....close.
Is that an agreement? (can I dare to hope?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# It is not he who gains the exact point in dispute who scores most in controversy—
but he who has shown the better temper.
Samuel Butler (1835-1902), English author.
Samuel Butler’s Notebooks (1951, p. 112).